CGIAR GENDER AND DIVERSITY PROGRAM WORKING PAPER NO. 35

Gender and Diversity in Times of Change: STAFFING TRENDS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES IN THE CGIAR

PREPARED BY: CARMEN JACOBS

ANNE ACOSTA

October 2002

Draft for discussion

i

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................ IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... V

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

2. LESSONS FROM THE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE: REDUCE, RESTRUCTURE OR RETHINK THE ORGANIZATION?....................................................................................2 Understanding and responding to organizational upheaval ...........................................2 Organizational effects of downsizing ............................................................................6 Effective approaches to downsizing ..............................................................................8 The Do’s and Don’ts of Downsizing ...........................................................................11 2.1.1. Strategic Human Resource Planning .........................................................11

2.1.2. Communication..........................................................................................13

2.1.3. Implementing Staff Reductions .................................................................13

2.1.4. Supporting the Staff that Remain...............................................................14

3. CGIAR PRACTICES TO MANAGE WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS .................................16 Planning and preparing for staff reductions.................................................................16 Communications ..........................................................................................................17 Making staff and cost reductions .................................................................................18 Assisting staff that depart and staff that remain...........................................................19 Best practices ...............................................................................................................21

4. STAFFING TRENDS IN THE FUTURE HARVEST CENTERS, 1995-2001........................23 Total Staff ....................................................................................................................24 Distribution of staff by position category ....................................................................25 Additional gender and diversity indicators among IRS...............................................30 Gender trends among IRS and NRS ............................................................................30 NRS position distribution by gender............................................................................32 IRS and NRS changes by age ......................................................................................32 Rates and causes of staff turnover ...............................................................................33

5. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................37 Principle findings .........................................................................................................37 Recommendations........................................................................................................39

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................40

ii

APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................42 APPENDIX 1. Questionnaire for CGIAR Centers Re downsizing Practices............42

APPENDIX 2. Worksheet for recording IRS staffing changes ................................45

APPENDIX 3. Worksheet for recording NRS staffing changes...............................46

APPENDIX 4. Summary table – Total IRS by Future Harvest Center ....................47

APPENDIX 5. Summary table – Total NRS by Future Harvest Center...................53

ABOUT THE AUTHORS........................................................................................................55

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document would not exist without the tremendous investment of time by staff members of the 16 Future Harvest Centers, particularly in their Human Resources units. We know that behind each of the HR managers whose names appeared on countless emails exchanged over the data-gathering process, there labored many other HR staff members whose willingness to pore over staff turnover data made this the first ever comprehensive report of demographics in the CGIAR. We also want to acknowledge the many managers and staff members who showed sensitivity and leadership as their Centers faced the difficult task of downsizing institutions where people are the most important asset. We hope that the next generation of leaders can learn something from the examples described here.

Having said that, we still particularly thank the following HR managers and directors who patiently and generously shared their knowledge and experiences with us: Jesús Cuellar and Fabiola Amariles (CIAT), Norman MacDonald and Jennifer Crocker (CIFOR), Claudio Cafati, Krista Baldini and Marisa de la O (CIMMYT), Hugo Li Pun (CIP), Michel Valat (ICARDA), Ed Sayegh (ICLARM), Tiff Harris and Roselyne Lecuyer (ICRAF), I. R. Nagaraj and A. J. Ramarao (ICRISAT), I’Dafney Green and Diane Spivak (IFPRI), Bob Booth and Frances McDonald (IITA), Bruce Scott and Margaret Morehouse (ILRI), Koen Geerts and Lotta Rasmusson (IPGRI), Ian Wallace (IRRI), Coen Kramer and Marian Lageman (ISNAR), David Governey (IWMI) and Justine Kouka (WARDA).

Special thanks also to the consulting authors, Carmen Jacobs and Anne Starks Acosta, for completing this multi-faceted study, resulting in a practical set of guidelines of direct relevance to our organization. Their dedication to keeping gender and diversity at the heart of organizational change is an example to all of us.

Vicki Wilde Program Leader

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

To survive the turmoil of the second half of the 1990s, many Future Harvest Centers were forced to reduce staff and restructure their operations. Unfortunately, given continual changes in the CGIAR and the broader environment, some may have to face the challenge again in the decade to come. This monograph aims to help CGIAR managers and staff members confront the imperative to reduce costs. We will argue that it is possible to emerge from a major cost-cutting process with all the organization’s strategic strengths intact – including a good balance of diversity across gender and nationalities, as well as the more typical functional areas. The proof is in the CGIAR’s own staffing trends over the seven-year period. In spite of a nearly 20 percent decline in total staff, the Future Harvest Centers show an incremental increase in the proportion of international staff from developing countries, as well as an increase in the number and proportion of women internationally and nationally recruited staff.

Responding to organizational upheaval

�� Successful organizations actively monitor changes in their environments and ensure their survival by evolving in synchrony with external forces. The better the organization can anticipate changes, the more likely it will lead the way in its chosen field. Three sets of forces in the external environment are affecting the Future Harvest Centers: budget-driven changes, science-driven changes, and changes related to the organization’s environment.

The need to economize has compelled a number of FH Centers to downsize staff and operating budgets. The literature shows that firms that downsize merely to cut costs are more likely to encounter post-downsizing problems than firms that downsize to increase productivity. The difference between the two approaches is a process of thorough analysis underpinning all decision-making, as we advocate in this monograph.

2. EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO DOWNSIZING

Downsizing is never easy or pleasant, however inevitable it may be. If poorly implemented, staff and cost reductions can cripple an organization’s performance. One study from the early 1990s (cited in Appelbaum et al., 1999) found more than half of the firms that had downsized were worse off a year later. The negative impact on victims, survivors and “executioners” all translated into productivity losses. If cuts were not based on a strategic analysis of organizational goals and needs, the firm was even less capable of responding to its external environment and meeting the needs of its clients.

The basic steps in the cycle of effective downsizing are:

�� analyze the organization: its mission, objectives, core competencies and fit with the environment;

�� diagnose the organization’s strengths and weaknesses to determine necessary changes; �� assess the types and effects of changes that are needed, possible and desirable; �� adopt a downsizing approach – either reorientation or convergence; �� plan the downsizing activities;

v

�� implement one or a combination of strategies such as workforce reduction, work redesign or systemic strategy; and

�� provide the necessary support for victims and survivors.

In adopting a downsizing approach that comprises a redefinition of the firm’s mission in reaction to environmental change, the following issues are crucial:

�� involve the entire organization in a systematic analysis of its structure, skills, jobs and tasks;

�� seek participation from all levels and areas of the organization, assuring all feel some responsibility for any changes;

�� communicate to employees about the impending restructuring and employ symbolic management activities such as reward ceremonies, slogans and inspirational speeches;

�� leverage relationships with other organizations to help downsizing efforts, i.e. transfer tasks to other organizations.

In planning the downsizing process, successful organizations will develop long-term strategic plans that consider how departments, areas, and processes can be redesigned while retaining high performers who are crucial to the organization. In implementing a workforce reduction strategy, the organization should carefully choose the employees to be cut, to ensure that the organization has the right people in the right places to ensure continued high levels of performance.

This is where gender and diversity issues come into sharp focus. Traditionally, strategic human resource management has looked at purely functional criteria in deciding what positions are mission-critical and what professional qualifications are needed in the staff to fill those jobs. Growing evidence in the field of gender and diversity management suggests that in complex environments such as those of the Future Harvest Centers, there is a strong business case for diversity that goes beyond diversity-blind academic knowledge and skill sets. The business case for diversity draws on arguments from labor market economics, as well as findings that a diverse staff is more successful engaging with widely diverse partners and networks. Organizations that successfully manage their internal diversity are also better at resolving systemic challenges that require interdisciplinary and out-of-the-box thinking.

Successful downsizing goes well beyond simply reducing total staff numbers. The organization will also require restructuring and a rethinking of its core activities. It needs to conduct downsizing in the context of a streamlining of all areas of the organization, looking at long-term payoffs through organizational redesign and systemic changes to eliminate waste, redundancies and inefficiency.

Support to victims and survivors must also be provided during and after downsizing through outplacement services, redeployment, training, collaboration between the private and the public sectors, and securing financial aid from governments. Services may also be provided to assess individuals’ skills, develop job search abilities and improve their chances of finding employment elsewhere. Employees may also be trained for jobs that they may have to undertake after downsizing, providing performance feedback that is relevant and specific to the employees’ jobs, and rewards that appropriately reflect the appraisal system to help alleviate the sense of loss.

vi

A list of practical “Do’s and Don’ts of Downsizing” is provided in Section 2.4 of the monograph.

3. DOWNSIZING PRACTICES IN THE FUTURE HARVEST CENTERS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STAFF DEMOGRAPHICS

A questionnaire was distributed to the FH Centers to assess the downsizing challenges faced between 1995 and 2001, and to document the practices used to cope with them.1

In general, survey responses suggest that the 10 Centers that actually dealt with downsizing coped fairly well, although more attention could have been paid to strategic planning in general and to strategic human resource planning issues in particular. In addition, several gave priority to job function over gender and diversity balance, indicating a lack of recognition of how G&D issues impact an organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.

Strategies used for downsizing: The primary strategy used for downsizing was workforce reduction through outplacements, retirement incentives, buyout packages, layoffs, outplacement assistance, induced redeployment and transfers.

Support for victims and survivors: The support provided to laid-off staff in the job transition process was thorough and sensitive. Layoff victims were treated with respect and dignity, and the mechanisms used to support them were extensive as well as creative.

Communication: Communication regarding the downsizing process was frequent and widespread and dismissal notification was done discreetly on an individual basis, respecting human dignity.

Participation: Although several Centers proactively involved their staff associations from the beginning and relied on them as two-way communications channels and partners in the decision-making process, there may be room for improvement in terms of promoting broad staff participation in the downsizing process.

Leadership: Supportive and committed leadership was practiced in the downsizing processes at the individual Centers. Top management was visible and responsible in providing direction and overall vision to the staff.

Staffing Trends

In the seven-year period reviewed, the Future Harvest Centers downsized by 19 percent, shedding a total of 1,857 staff members. As of August 2001, Future Harvest Centers had a total staff of 7,851, of which 5,763 were men and 2,088 were women; 6,829 were nationally recruited staff (NRS) and 1,022 were internationally recruited staff (IRS) (see Table 4.1). Proportionally speaking, female staff rose from 24.1 percent to 26.5 percent over the seven-year period, and IRS rose from 11.2 percent to 13.0 percent. 1 From a methodological point of view, it is important to note that the survey was addressed to – and

presumably completed by – the HR units of the sixteen Centers, under the supervision of the Centers’ Deputy Directors General for Administration. We trust that the HR staff accurately reported on the design and intentions of their Centers with regard to downsizing practices. We did not conduct a survey of Center staff – victims or survivors – to get their perceptions of the downsizing process, nor did we conduct a before-and-after evaluation of the Centers to determine the impact of downsizing on each of the organizations. That would have been well beyond the terms of reference of the current study, but would no doubt have yielded further interesting findings.

vii

Downsizing in the Future Harvest Centers has pushed the Centers toward a somewhat younger average staff age, leaving the gender and national diversity balance intact, and shifting the ratio of international to national staff more in the direction of the former group. It remains to be seen what the impact of these changes is on overall performance of the affected Centers.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

New challenges require that the Centers develop a strategic vision of the skill-sets required for the future – scientists who learn together in an environment that prizes “out of the box” thinking and productivity. Because each Future Harvest Center operates within a unique geographical context, scientific domain, network of partnerships, and organizational culture, particular care must be taken not to assume that all will react similarly to the challenges of downsizing. Diversity is inherent in the very nature of the FH Centers, and the collective mental programming of the organizations and their members must be considered.

Nevertheless, a few rules can be spelled out to implement downsizing wisely. Before embarking on any changes, Future Harvest Centers should take the time to do the strategic analysis. The FH Centers must have a clear idea of their missions, challenges and opportunities in order to know why, how and to what extent they must undergo structural changes, if any. A solid performance evaluation system of staff and organizational productivity is the other platform upon which to base the strategic, business and technology plans of the organization.

If the Centers already have strategic human resource management processes in place, they will be that much further along. Once a Center has charted its (new) strategic direction, it must consider the mix of staff that will be required to carry out operational plans. Multiple skill sets will probably be required. In addition to multidisciplinary high-performing scientific teams, the Centers probably will need to seek diversity in personal styles, familiarity with multiple national and organizational cultures, and above all, flexibility. Consultations between the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program and FH Center leadership have confirmed that many Centers already recognize gender and national cultural diversity to be strategic staffing goals precisely because they dovetail with these considerations.

viii

1. INTRODUCTION

For more than 30 years, in spite of challenging and rapidly changing conditions, the CGIAR Future Harvest Centers have worked effectively around the world, generating new technologies, products, and services to ensure sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries. Among the challenges faced by the FH Centers in the recent past are: �� a global economic downturn; �� a contraction in public sector and international development funding; �� changing players, roles and rules in international agricultural research; and �� dramatic changes in science.

To survive the turmoil of the second half of the 1990s, many of the Future Harvest Centers were forced to reduce staff and restructure their operations. Some may face the threat again in this first decade of the twenty-first century. The pace of change in the CGIAR’s external environment is not going to slow down, and if the Centers might once have been buffered from those changes by loyal and generous donors, this is no longer likely to be the case.

These changes have had and will continue to have direct bearing on the Centers’ health and productivity, whether this is measured in financial terms or by the degree to which the organization is able to achieve its mission, goals and objectives. The Future Harvest Centers find themselves in a difficult situation. As nonprofit organizations dependent on donors’ largesse, the Centers have had to face budget crises with little forewarning. Yet given the importance of their global missions, they must still strive to deliver on their mandates year in and year out. Responsible management action in such a context requires maintaining a balance between two related goals: staying true to the organization’s strategic course; and nurturing the right mix of human resources to ensure that the organization can perform in the medium and long term.

Organizational restructuring and downsizing is never easy or pleasant. Moreover, the management literature is full of examples where poorly implemented cost-cutting strate-gies have fatally undermined organizations’ core competencies. As pessimistic as this sounds, we have also learned many lessons over the last few years that can guide the FH Centers through future contractions. Chapter 2 of this monograph synthesizes those lessons most relevant for the CGIAR, taking into consideration the global and multicul-tural nature of the Centers, their status as nonprofit research organizations, and their need to remain on the cutting edge of science. Not only do we draw on the general literature on downsizing, but we also report in Chapter 3 on Centers’ own best practices in response to budget reductions. In Chapter 4, we look at the impact of downsizing on overall staffing trends in the CGIAR. The general picture is one of positive achievements in increasing gender and national origin diversity despite an overall decline in staff numbers, along with some marked shifts in the employment structure among the staff that remain.

We conclude with recommendations regarding the importance of keeping a strategic focus and supporting strategic human resource management so that if organizational downsizing and restructuring is inevitable, it is at least carried out with minimal damage to the organization.

1

2. LESSONS FROM THE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE: REDUCE, RESTRUCTURE OR RETHINK THE ORGANIZATION?

This chapter addresses the challenges of organizational downsizing from four perspec-tives. The first section explores important distinctions in downsizing methodologies, as a basis for recommending a strategic approach. The second section discusses some of the negative psychological and institutional effects of downsizing and how these can be minimized. The third section builds on the previous two, outlining the main features of an integrated approach to downsizing. We close with a summary list of do’s and don’ts that can help FH Centers navigate the difficult course of downsizing.

Understanding and responding to organizational upheaval

Several streams of thought in the management literature come together to explain the dynamics behind organizational upheaval, and how to overcome it. Foremost among these is open systems theory, which holds that all organisms (including human systems and organizations) exist in relationship to a continually changing environment. The successful organization actively monitors changes in its environment, and ensures its survival by evolving in synchrony with external forces. The better the organization can anticipate changes, the more likely it will lead the way in its chosen field.

A second school of thought – organizational population ecology – argues that competition for scarce resources will continually force certain organizations out of the race, while others seem to thrive. A third school contends that all organizations pass through predict-able stages from birth to death. Maturation through each stage leads the organization to new challenges that can only be addressed through a significant transformation, leading to the next stage of development.

Whichever of the three organizational change paradigms one favors, it seems clear that change is unavoidable. Organizational change is nothing new, but perhaps what is new is the growth in the field of organizational change management. Most of this field focuses on the private sector, where a long list of indicators have been developed to monitor the health of for-profit organizations to enable them to stay ahead of turbulent market forces. Nevertheless, the past dozen years have seen the corporate sector undergo numerous purges, with workforce reductions typically attributed to competitive forces2 and/or periodic economic contractions. Other factors behind downsizing include losses in sales and profitability, technological innovations resulting in heightened productivity (hence a need for fewer workers), organizational culture changes that lead to redundancy of middle management, and/or rising personnel costs per unit of output.

Some but not all of these factors are also behind changes in the external environment of the FH Centers. “Profit and loss” is obviously not at issue in the CGIAR, but three other forces are highly relevant:

2 One manifestation of competitive forces has been the plethora of mergers and acquisitions worldwide

and regardless of industry, most of which are designed to take advantage of economies of scale. An important part of the cost savings following M&A’s is the consolidation (read: elimination) of duplicate functions, resulting in staff reductions.

2

�� Budget-driven changes: overall budget reductions, and/or shifts from majority unrestricted funding to majority restricted or project funding;

�� Science-driven changes: the need to move research upstream or downstream (different Centers have been affected differently), to incorporate the use of new science and new tools, the need to approach challenges from more of a systems perspective, and in some cases, the challenge of taking on whole new issues (e.g. the interface between HIV/AIDS and agriculture);

�� Organizational environment-driven changes: changes related to the evolution in the CG System’s mission, goals, and operating principles. Two trends stand out in parti-cular here: a heightened emphasis on impact and accountability for the use of donor funds; and – in part because they contribute to a more efficient use of resources – ever widening partnerships between Centers (e.g. system-wide initiatives), between Centers and national agricultural research services (NARSs), and increasing partnerships with the private and nongovernmental sectors.

Whether private, public or nonprofit, organizations – including the best performers – constantly face the imperative to adjust course, improve efficiency, and minimize costs. A variety of approaches can be used to attain these goals. For the purposes of this paper, we define several of the methods below, in part because the terms are often used inter-changeably when they actually imply quite different interventions (Appelbaum et al., 1999):

�� Downsizing – a general reduction in staff and operating budgets driven by a need to economize.

�� Rightsizing – sometimes no more than a euphemism for its first cousin (above), genuine rightsizing is the outcome of cost- and productivity/efficiency analyses (see “reengineering”) that result in eliminating waste and focusing the organization on its core businesses.

�� Restructuring or reorganizing – in general, these terms imply a redrawing of the organizational chart to combine areas, change reporting relationships, flatten hierarchies, and/or shift to greater use of teams. They may or may not include efforts to realign organizational culture to match structural changes (in fact, often they do not, with the result that they have minimal or even negative net impact on productivity). They may be conducted in an ad hoc way, or they may follow from a fundamental rethinking of how to accomplish the core work of the Center (again, see “reengineer-ing”).

�� Retooling – adopting new technologies that enable the science of the Centers to be done more efficiently and effectively. May or may not result in a substitution of capital for labor. Should result in changes in procedures, and may imply a need to train staff in new skills or hire a different profile of staff altogether (e.g. unskilled field workers may be replaced by fewer but better trained workers using new equipment).

�� Reengineering – the classic definition of reengineering is the “radical redesign of the organization’s core business processes in order to increase value-added, quality and service and to reduce cost” (Manganelli & Klein, 1995). Often misrepresented as synonymous with downsizing, genuine reengineering is a rigorous analytical process that consists of a number of basic steps:

3

º identify and prioritize the organization’s core processes;3 º analyze and map the workflow of these processes to determine where there are

inefficiencies (e.g. duplication, waste, unnecessary authorizations, time lags between steps, etc.);

º benchmark – study other industry leaders – to learn how things could be done differently;

º redesign the process workflow to dramatically reduce activities that fail to add value to the product; and

º implement changes in the organization’s “socio-technical” systems4 to enable the new process design to function smoothly.

�� Rethinking – going beyond reengineering, “rethinking” is in some ways synonymous with comprehensive strategic planning. It looks to the far horizon to understand how the external environment is likely to evolve (including changes in the supply and demand for products/services, the state of technology, and the comparative advantage of the institution relative to its partners and alternative suppliers). Based on this analysis, it encourages the organization to reevaluate its core activities and relative priorities (“In the future, what products and services will be most important?”), and the basic ways it conducts its business.

The rethinking approach closely resembles what Cameron and Freeman refer to as “reorientation” (Cameron, 1994a & b; Freeman, 1994). Under a reorientation approach, the organization questions the essence of its existence, how things are being done and whether they should even be done at all. Following an in-depth analysis of the organiza-tion’s present mission and strategic direction, a reorientation (re) defines the organization’s mission according to its fit with the environment in order to adopt a new, more efficient and effective overall structure. In this approach, downsizing is achieved through consoli-dating units, eliminating redundancies, etc. Needs and skills analyses are conducted and selective layoffs are implemented, instead of massive indiscriminate firings. This approach combines clear direction from management with a high degree of participation from all employees.

Alternatively, the analysis of the external environment may suggest that the organization is on an appropriate course but that operations are not being performed optimally, leaving room for improvement. This calls for streamlining operations, raising productivity and increasing efficiency, instead of a thorough overhaul of the organization. Incremental changes in selected areas of the organization are best implemented at a micro level, such as changes in localized tasks, jobs, and processes. Note, however, that it is the environ-mental analysis and degree of organizational fit that determines whether radical or

3 In the reeingineering literature, a “process” is defined as a chain of linked activities that combine to

create a product or outcome of value to an internal or external client. In conventionally structured organizations, processes almost always cross organizational boundaries. Thus, accounting or purchas-ing are not “processes” in this sense, but “materials acquisitions” is (where the latter is the set of activi-ties that starts with identifying suppliers and ends when the product is received and the invoice is paid).

4 The organization’s “socio-technical systems” include its technologies, on the one hand (e.g. production equipment, information systems, etc.), and its enabling procedures (especially HR practices such as staff recruitment, evaluation and reward systems, training, etc.). It is essential that these two domains of support systems be fully aligned with the new process designs, otherwise staff will lack the tools and incentives to work in new ways.

4

incremental change is the correct course to follow. Unfortunately, all too often these decisions are based on uninformed judgments.

Kay (1993) states that a key factor in maintaining competitive advantage in organizations lies in the capacity to maintain continuous improvement and foster innovation. This ability depends partly on the organization’s experience and knowledge (its intellectual capital) and partly on organizational architecture – defined as the firm’s network of relationships with employees, suppliers and customers, and with individuals and organizations engaged in related activities and fields. Kay stresses that these crucial features may be damaged through short-term restructuring of organizational architecture and the de-layering of staff. While downsizing and restructuring may be unavoidable, Kay argues that firms should ensure their competitive advantage by protecting strategic assets such as access to scarce or value-adding features like technical knowledge, organizational creativity and synergy, and management competence.

In a similar vein, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) contend that management must continually focus on the longer-term identification, development and exploitation of core competen-cies that make business development and growth possible. They maintain that competi-tiveness (or reframed in a CGIAR context, relevance) derives from the organization’s building core competencies to introduce new technologies and products, to create new customer demand, to respond to changing opportunities, and to “create what isn’t”. Hamel and Prahalad echo the tenets of the reorientation approach, arguing that managers must periodically rethink the basic concept of the corporation, its mission and how it operates.

The literature reports that firms that downsize or restructure proactively to increase per-formance are more likely to be successful than those that do so as a defense reaction to decline. Firms that downsized to cut costs were more likely to encounter post-downsizing problems than firms that downsized to increase productivity.

Moreover, firms that downsize effectively, generally plan, invest in analysis, encourage participation from all stakeholders, and thrive on information exchange between depart-ments, among supervisors and subordinates, and throughout the entire organization. Downsizing tactics that contribute to success involve considering human resources as assets deserving of proper attention, not as costs or liabilities. They implement long term planning of human resources including proper diagnosis of the employees’ reactions and organizational dysfunctions to survive and succeed. The Human Resource Department plays a critical role in these organizations (Cameron, 1994a).

What does all this mean for the Future Harvest Centers facing the need to restructure or downsize? Two conclusions can be drawn at this stage of analysis. First, before embark-ing on any changes, take the time to do the strategic analysis. This requires a certain amount of courage because it requires time and often money under circumstances where both appear to be short. Nevertheless, the experts are unanimous in indicating that the quality of decision-making and the organizational buy-in of staff with regard to imple-menting difficult decisions, both justify the investment.

Second, if the Centers already have in place strategic human resource management pro-cesses, they will be that much further along – for once the Center has charted its (new) strategic direction, it must consider carefully the mix of staff that will be required to effectively carry out operational plans. Keep in mind that multiple skill sets will probably be required. Beyond the Centers’ proclivities towards multidisciplinary high-performing

5

scientific teams, the Centers will probably also need to seek diversity in personal styles, familiarity with multiple national and organizational cultures, and above all, flexibility. Consultations between the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program and FH Center leadership have confirmed that many Centers already recognize gender and national cultural diversity to be strategic staffing goals precisely because they dovetail with these considerations.

Organizational effects of downsizing

Having made the distinction in the previous section about terminologies, we will use the word “downsizing” in this monograph not in its limited sense, but as shorthand for a systematic reduction of a workforce through an intentionally instituted set of activities by which organizations aim to improve efficiency and performance. Numerous books and articles were published in the 1990s analyzing the reasons for, expectations and actual results of the wave of downsizing that occurred at the beginning of the decade (see the bibliography for multiple references in this regard). Organizations undertake downsizing with the expectation that they will reap financial and organizational benefits. Financially, they expect to increase shareholder value, do more with less, create fewer management layers and more centralized organizational structures, lower overhead, and reduce average salaries among the less-senior surviving labor force. Among the organizational benefits they anticipate are smoother communications, greater entrepreneurship, heightened productivity, and reduced product prices, all of which are expected to improve competi-tiveness at national and international levels.

More organizations are disappointed with the actual results of downsizing than are satis-fied with the outcome. One study found that more than half of the organizations that undertook downsizing in the early 1990s were worse off a year later, often having to shut down operations altogether because they had fatally damaged strategic business areas (Appelbaum et al., 1999). Coordination, motivation and performance levels are all likely to be affected due to lower morale, reduced trust and productivity among “survivors.” Organizations must also grapple with increased levels of job dissatisfaction, role ambiguity, conflict among supervisors, staff and colleagues, and employee stress and burnout. Employees become self-centered and risk-averse. Those employees that are highly self-motivated – those most needed after downsizing – may leave or become less invested in the organization. Unplanned staff turnover and reduced commitment both take financial tolls on the organization. Firms may find themselves needing more temporary workers and consultants or paying more for overtime and retraining, leading to higher rather than lower labor costs.

Applebaum et al. (1999) reviewed various studies that explored the reasons why organi-zations fail to benefit from downsizing. Their findings included the following:

�� the downsizing projects were poorly executed or managed by the organization (Cameron, 1994a; Freeman, 1994);

�� the firms were unable to look beyond the traditional organization design of command, control and compartmentalize (Cascio, 1993);

�� the extent of resentment and resistance to change of the organization resulted in loss of productivity, efficiency and competitiveness (Cameron, 1994a);

�� the organization was not well prepared for the problems that typically arise from downsizing, (employee resentment and concern, loss of morale, lack of innovation and creation, etc.) (Cascio, 1993; Dougherty and Bowman, 1995; Freeman, 1994).

6

The literature describes three organizational groups who are negatively affected by downsizing: victims, survivors and “executioners.” Victims of downsizing are easiest to identify and sympathize with – these are the men and women who have lost their jobs and who experience the most direct impact psychologically and financially. Marks (1994) cites studies indicating that job loss is second only to death of a loved one in terms of psychological impact. The self-esteem and self-confidence of employees can be badly damaged, and the effects may last for months and sometimes years – not only for the employee but for his/her family and the larger community as well.

The impact of downsizing is bad enough in Western societies (where most of the manage-ment studies are done), where individualism and nuclear families reign. One can only imagine how much worse the ripple effect is in the communal societies where many of the FH Centers are located, where a worker in the formal economy may be the sole bread-winner for a large extended family that has invested in the education of the fortunate kinsman. International staff who have been away from their home job markets for some time face different trials. They may need extra networking support to find new employ-ment back home or elsewhere in the international community. They and their families may also need access to counseling support to deal with the reverse culture shock of re-entry into their no-longer native environments (Adler, 1997).

To soften the impact of downsizing on victims, a well-managed staff reduction strategy should: �� treat all departing staff humanely; �� emphasize that termination decisions do not imply personal failings of the staff

member; �� provide counseling support if at all possible; and �� provide generous assistance with the transition process to new employment (e.g.

resume writing, providing job references and referrals, training and support for job-hunting and networking skills, job retraining programs, etc.)

These may seem like expensive luxuries to highly cost-conscious managers, but research indicates that the investment repays itself many times over (Marks, 1994). The organiza-tion will gain credibility as a good citizen in the community, especially important when community members are also suppliers, consumers and clients. The morale of staff that remain is bolstered by the knowledge that, should their turn come, they will be treated fairly. And should the organization rebound from its immediate problems and need to hire staff back eventually, it will have sown goodwill among its former employees who may once again serve the company.

“Survivors” of downsizing carry a different set of concerns. One of the most debilitating may be a sense of guilt over the “privilege” of staying in the organization when friends and admired colleagues have been dismissed. Staff may believe that it is only a matter of time before they too are let go, and motivation drops just when the organization needs a redoubling of commitment. Or conversely, some staff may indeed put in the extra hours and effort, but stress and burnout become the principal result. This is especially likely if the organization fails to downsize the workload in parallel with staff reductions. Often the expectation is that remaining staff will just pick up the slack and absorb the duties of former colleagues. Performance pressure increases but is rarely accompanied by training in new needed job skills, much less by pay increases. An increase in on-the-job injuries and stress-related health problems are frequent side-effects.

7

The “executioners” are probably the least appreciated casualty group following a down-sizing. Typically it is the middle management group that delivers the bad news to staff. These managers may be highly ambivalent about who or what is really responsible for the current situation, and about the decision-making process over who is let go. Nevertheless, as the bearers of bad news, they may receive the brunt of staff resentment over firings. Their credibility and the trust of their subordinates are jeopardized, making it even more difficult for them to reinvigorate the organization. To handle their multiple challenges, they require training and coaching on how to deal effectively with victims and survivors before, during and after downsizing announcements are made. And they will require special support if, after implementing painful measures, they themselves become targets of downsizing in a subsequent round of cuts.

Effective approaches to downsizing

As noted above, downsizing can produce enduring negative economic and human effects in organizations. Therefore, organizations must base decisions about staff reductions on their strategic plans in terms of the future mission, activities, and staff profile required to carry out such work.

The following steps represent the basic cycle an organization should follow when considering downsizing:

�� conduct a thorough analysis of the organization: its future mission, objectives, core competencies, and its fit with the environment;

�� perform an internal and external diagnostic considering the organization’s strengths and weaknesses to determine needed changes;

�� assess the type and effects of change that are needed, possible and desirable; �� adopt a downsizing approach – either reorientation (redefinition of the firm’s mission

in reaction to past missteps or environmental change) or convergence (fine-tuning of the firm’s mission present vision, mission, strategy and structure);

�� plan the downsizing activities; �� implement one or a combination of strategies: workforce reduction, work redesign,

systemic strategy; and �� provide the necessary support for victims and survivors.

Figure 2.1 (next page) synthesizes in flowchart form the different steps that should be followed in a comprehensive approach to downsizing-reorientation of the organization.

Four critical issues are crucial to successful reorientation.

�� The entire organization must be involved in systematic analysis of its structure, skills, jobs and tasks.

�� Participation must come from all levels and areas of the organization, and all should feel some responsibility for any changes that might occur.

�� Communication is vital; it must be clear to employees that the firm will be experien-cing critical change and that a completely restructured firm will soon be a reality; the use of communication and symbolic management activities such as reward ceremo-nies, slogans, inspirational speeches, among others is important.

�� Relationships with other organizations should be leveraged wherever these can help downsizing efforts, e.g. task transfers to other organizations (outsourcing).

8

Workforce reductions may consist of across-the-board cuts, transfers, outplacements, retirement incentives, buyout packages, layoffs and attrition. There are at least five ways to implement work-force reductions: through attrition, induced and/or involuntary redeployment, and layoffs with or without outplacement/redeployment assistance. In its most limited form, workforce reductions may be applied at all levels of the organization with no consideration to ensure that crucial skills and critical human resources are maintained. Such an approach runs the grave risk of damaging the organization’s core competencies. The solution is for the organization to consciously and carefully choose the employees to be cut. Even this approach may result in some short-term morale problems in the organization, but the aim is to ensure that in the long term the organization has the right people in the right places to ensure continued high levels of performance.

Figure 2.1. Basic steps in a comprehensive downsizing process

Decision to reposition/reorganize/restructure (including understanding of motives)

1. Strategic planning:

a) Articulate new organizational vision/mission b) Identify needed changes in structures, policies, positions and personnel profiles c) Identify needed changes in organizational culture

2.a. Logistical planning for reorganization (1) Evaluate approaches to reorganization (2) Evaluate alternatives for redeploying staff

2.b. Strategic human resource analysis (1) Analyze & determine required job functions &

personnel profiles for the “new” organization (2) Determine positions to be eliminated (3) Determine needs of “surviving” employees

3. Develop the reorganization plan, including: ��Phases of the plan and time schedule ��Communication plan for organizational change

3.a. Develop the staff separation plan

3.b. Develop the survivor support plan

3.c. Develop organizational change strategy

4.a. Implement the staff separation plan

4.b. Implement the survivor support plan

4.c. Implement the organiza-tional change strategy

5.a. Post-implementation:

Evaluate the staff separation plan

5.b. Post-implementation: Evaluate the survivor support plan

5.c. Post-implementation: Evaluate the organiza-tional change strategy

A work redesign strategy is aimed at reducing work. It is a mid-term strategy that is usually implemented by phasing out functions, hierarchical levels, departments or divisions; redesigning tasks; combining units and adopting a shorter work-week. It is important that the changes are focused on redesigning work and organizational processes. This strategy usually leads to an increase in organization efficiency due to simplified structures.

A systemic strategy is a long-term strategy that strives to ensure that seemingly endless workforce reductions will not have to be carried out in the future. It relates downsizing to streamlining all areas of the organization, transcending the status quo, allowing adequate amount of time for implementation, and looking at long-term payoffs. This strategy is

9

deemed the most likely to produce positive results. In order to sustain long-term gains in efficiency, organizations must engage in further continuous improvement processes that include not only organizational redesign, but also systemic changes to eliminate waste, redundancies, and inefficiency.

In planning the downsizing process, successful organizations will develop long-term strategic plans that take into account how departments, areas, and processes can be redesigned while retaining high performers who are crucial to the organization. They include staff analysis and realignment in the planning phase so as to retain vital skills and knowledge, regardless of age or seniority. They recognize that if younger or more experienced or creative employees leave the organization, the organization’s ability to compete in the future may be compromised.

The successful downsizing process will also foster staff participation at all organizational levels, from the analysis phase to design of strategies and their implementation and follow-on. Contrary to the fears of most managers, including everyone in the downsizing process will help employees accept and feel responsible for the changes. On the other hand, surprising employees on short notice can lead to low morale and reduced producti-vity. That is why typical top-down downsizing approaches are usually the least effective. By involving all members of the organization in the downsizing effort, the level of uncertainty is reduced and the amount of confidence in the process is increased.

Employees must feel the presence of leadership at this critical time. Managers may find this challenging to do, since their instinctive response may be to want stay out of the limelight in the hope that this will avoid conflict. However, the presence of senior managers throughout the downsizing process indicates to employees that top management is truly concerned about them, willing and prepared to help them and answer any of their questions.

Communication must flow at all levels. Employees must feel they are being informed accurately and in a timely fashion of the downsizing efforts. Strengthening two-way communication creates an environment of trust and honesty. This atmosphere encourages employees to cooperate and helps the company survive the temporary unhealthy situation.

Finally as noted in Section 2.3, support must be provided to victims and survivors through-out the organization during and after the process. This can be done through help by outplacement services, redeployment, training, collaboration between the private and the public sectors, and securing financial aid from governments. The organization can also provide services to assess individuals’ skills, develop job search abilities, and improve their chances of finding employment elsewhere. In addition, training employees for jobs that they may have to undertake after downsizing, providing performance feedback that is relevant and specific to the employees’ jobs, and rewards that appropriately reflect the appraisal system are all helpful toward alleviating the sense of loss. Survivors must feel comfortable with the care and treatment being given to absent colleagues. The Human Resource Manager’s involvement is direly needed throughout the entire downsizing procedure, but perhaps most critical in helping to overcome this stage. (See the book by Knowdell et al. for a thorough discussion of the options available to human resource managers to handle these matters.)

10

The Do’s and Don’ts of Downsizing

Rule #1 – “Don’t rush downsizing: Plan, plan, plan!”5

A well-planned, integrated strategy can help the emerge from downsizing with a sharper focus on their mission, with their staff morale intact, and perhaps even with a renegotiated social contract that fosters more initiative and impact than before. The “do’s” and “don’ts” that follow are part of such a strategy, covering four main areas: strategic human resource planning; communication; implementing staff reductions; and supporting the staff that remain.

2.1.1. Strategic Human Resource Planning

DO base decisions about staff reductions on the organization’s strategic plan – preferably looking at where the organization needs to be at least 3-5 years in the future in terms of mission, activities, and the desired staff profile needed to carry out such work.

DO identify the positions that will remain “mission-critical,” at least in this 3-5 year horizon. Ideally, your existing staff performance evaluation system should classify your staff into three categories: �� high performers whom you want to keep and perhaps retrain to upgrade skills; �� average performers, who may be eligible for severance packages; and �� below average performers, who should be the first to receive separation packages. Wherever possible, your goal should be to match your high performing staff with the mission critical positions that contribute directly to your strategic plan.

DO include in this strategic HR plan the functional skills you expect the organization will need – but also consider the social dimension of the organization you want to be in the future. Will the organization increasingly engage in collaborative partnerships? If so, be sure your staff includes good team players with negotiating skills and sensitivity to multicultural issues. Will your partners and clients be demographically more diverse in the future? If so, maintaining or enhancing your own staff diversity should be among the decision criteria for deciding who stays and who will leave.

DO consider rethinking/reengineering your work processes, rather than merely restruc-turing staff and reallocating tasks. The core principles of reengineering include: identifying what creates value-added for clients (internal and external); investing in these activities and minimizing the effort that goes into everything else; and documenting the actual steps in the value-adding processes, to identify where steps can be consolidated, streamlined, eliminated, or enhanced through the use of technology. Well executed reengineering delivers on the promise of doing more with less, by eliminating waste and empowering staff to exercise their initiative. The alternative – loading the remaining staff with all the work of their departed colleagues – leads directly to low morale, burnout and diminished productivity, precisely when the opposite is needed.6

5 Title of an article by Samuel Greengard in Personnel Journal, November 1993, pp. 64-76. 6 There are a number of good books on how to implement a genuine reengineering – see for example,

Harbour (1994), Harrington et al. (1997), and Manganelli and Klein (1995).

11

DO aim for reasonable diversity on your strategic HR planning team – in terms of hierarchy, disciplines, cultures, and gender. Aiming for diversity on the planning team will help advance your effort in several ways: �� Ensures that multiple perspectives are represented in the strategic HR plan (which

positions will be preserved, what selection criteria go into the desired staff profile, etc.) �� Ensures that the implicit norms of any one group in the organization do not dominate

the multicultural workplace �� Provides a channel for staff participation, which helps build broad ownership of the

plan and spreads understanding of the need to implement the more difficult measures �� Creates more ombudsmen who can communicate the strategy to their peers and

express colleagues’ concerns back to the group

DO include specific plans to train management to minimize the human resource stress that comes with downsizing and consequential organizational change. Prepare them to manage communicating downsizing activity as well as the intense human activity that follows by showing and teaching them particular tactics to be used in handling human response patterns, emotional reactions, uncertainty and concerns. As employees reach lower stress levels they are more committed to the organization. This leads to greater productivity, quality and organizational effectiveness, plus employee well being. Try to get people to accept and control their emotional reactions to change.

DO design or create mechanisms to involve employees in decision-making for the downsizing process.

DON’T approach downsizing (staff or cost reductions) from the angle of across-the-board cuts. The temptation may be great to do so, because it is a quick and easy measure to implement – it saves you all the time, hard thinking and haggling that goes into developing a strategic HR plan. However, the short-term benefits are outweighed by large long-term costs. Across the board cuts punish the units in the organization that are contributing to the organization’s strategic goals, that are highly productive, and/or that have already made efficiency gains. They result in an indirect subsidy from the high performing units to those that are less strategic or disciplined. They may also lead to the elimination of positions that later prove to be essential to the organization, in which case the organization will have to hire back staff to cover these functions – incurring additional costs. Many organizations that implemented across-the-board cuts either found themselves crippled and unable to deliver on their mission, or saw their staff numbers float back up to pre-downsizing levels.

DON’T base downsizing decisions strictly on seniority – at either end of the tenure range. Like across-the-board cuts, indiscriminately encouraging older staff to take early retirement or releasing the most recent recruits to the organization look like simple steps to implement, but may lose the organization its most seasoned, experienced members or those who bring the critical new skills the organization will need in the future. Again, the key is to search for the best fit between needed skills and the staff with the ability to deliver those skills.

DON’T assume that staff will let go and adapt to downsizing easily! Allow the necessary time employees need to let go and set up

adequate procedures to help them through these stages.

12

2.1.2. Communication

DO inform staff accurately and in a timely fashion of the downsizing efforts. They have to believe the downsizing is legitimate and not due to previous poor management or incompetence. They should feel confident that they are being told the truth about what’s going on, and that what they feel can be heard and taken into consideration. Communica-tion should flow in both directions frequently and honestly.

DO communicate the same information, plans or actions through several media. Better to over-communicate as information becomes available, than to create mysteries and distrust. The more information employees receive, the more they will feel that they are truly a part of the organization.

DO allow staff at all levels to voice their concerns associated with downsizing and its impact. Create task forces so that as many employees as possible can voice opinions on how to downsize, revise work, and reintegrate. Be sure to recognize their contributions. This will lead to additional support in subsequent implementation.

DO make a point of searching out staff at different levels to personally communicate acknowledgements, concerns and evolving plans throughout the downsizing process. This gives assurance, trust and security

DON’T keep downsizing a secret from your staff or keep them guessing about their fate until the last minute. You may risk their finding out through the media or other sources. If information leaks, you could lose employees’ trust and loyalty; productivity could plummet. You may have great difficulties bringing them all up again!

DON’T drop the package only on top management’s – or middle management’s – lap. The staff must know that management at all levels cares and is interested in talking to them about what the future holds.

DON’T raise false expectations about downsizing results by communicating exaggerated optimism regarding the possible outcomes and adaptation. Acknowledge the possibility of unintended consequences. The success of the downsizing will depend on how realistically the recuperating process is portrayed. The more realistically it is portrayed, the less difficult it will be to overcome its effects.

2.1.3. Implementing Staff Reductions

DO make sure to consciously and carefully choose the employees to be cut and ensure that crucial skills and critical human resources are maintained in the organization. This will help prevent organizational dysfunction and loss of loyalty and commitment. Cutbacks at higher management levels help other levels believe that in effect, changes are occurring throughout the organization and that the process truly involves and affects everyone.

DO explain the criteria for downsizing, and make sure they are administered consistently and accurately, particularly when there is a performance appraisal system that they are completely familiar with and will compare against. This will increase trust on behalf of the staff, and they will believe that the organization is being fair in implementing the downsizing.

DO consider a combination of strategies in reducing workforce. You can resort to transfers, outplacements, retirement incentives, buyout packages, layoffs and attrition.

13

DO strive to ensure that workforce reductions will not have to be carried out repeatedly in the future. As complex and painful as it may be, a well-executed overhaul of the organization will leave it healthier than an incremental patchwork approach to problem-solving.

DO help displaced staff re-locate in outplacement services, redeployment, training, collaboration between the private and the public sectors, and securing financial aid from governments. The organization can also provide services to assess their skills, develop job search abilities, and improve their chances of finding employment elsewhere.

DON’T throw displaced personnel into the unemployment lines if you can relocate them elsewhere in the job market. You will gain the gratitude of your departing staff, and credibility in the eyes of your community and those employees who remain on board.

2.1.4. Supporting the Staff that Remain

DO develop policies for victims with an eye on how the remaining staff will react to them. Make survivors feel comfortable with the care and treatment being given to absent colleagues. This will decrease stress, making them feel more confident about any future situation, and increase their commitment to the organization.

DO implement procedures to decrease the amount of stress experienced by employees after downsizing. Help them cope with its effects. Survivors should be convinced they are better off having stayed in the organization, not longing they too had been laid off or laden with extra work.

DO follow up the reorientation process with continuous improvement processes that help eliminate further redundancies, waste and inefficiency.

DO redesign workloads. If necessary, phase out functions, hierarchical levels, divisions or departments, redesigning tasks, combining units and adopting a shorter work-week. All this will increase organization efficiency by simplifying structures.

DO train employees for jobs that they may have to undertake after downsizing whenever possible, and consider appropriate adjustments in pay and recognition. You are investing in the productivity of your future staff.

DO use a variety of measures to restore commitment to the organization. Build a sense of community; employees must have something to look forward to and view collectively. They too must share top management’s better vision of the organization.

DO make sure the Human Resource Manager (HRM) is involved in helping the staff that remain overcome the transition period, once the downsizing procedure has been implemented. Help is badly needed throughout the entire process, but the HRM’s involvement at this point is critical.

DON’T ignore your remaining staff, thinking they will accept the situation passively with no fear or anger. And don’t expect individuals to accept downsizing and the organizational changes that come with it overnight. They will go through a lengthy process of clinging to the old, before they truly assimilate change and function accordingly or accept the new.

14

DON’T underestimate the time nor the monetary resources required to implement the changes that come with downsizing!

15

3. CGIAR PRACTICES TO MANAGE WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS

A questionnaire was distributed to the FH Centers to assess the downsizing challenges faced between 1995 and 2001, and to document the practices used to cope with them.7 Ten of the 16 IARCs provided detailed responses to the questionnaire: CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, ILRI, IRRI and ISNAR. The remainder (CIFOR, ICLARM, IFPRI, IPGRI, IWMI, and WARDA) replied that they had not undergone any downsizing experiences, and did not anticipate any such threat in the near future.

In general, survey responses suggest that Centers faced with downsizing coped fairly well with a challenge that is never pleasant. Overall, the impression from the survey data is as follows.

�� The planning phase of downsizing at most Centers seems to have been done thought-fully and carefully, but more attention could be paid to strategic planning in general and to strategic human resource planning issues in particular.

�� Few Centers seem to have given consideration to the impact of downsizing on the gender and diversity balance among staff. Several noted that they gave priority to functional job attributes over gender and diversity balance, implying that there is not widespread recognition that G&D issues themselves directly impact the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission as well.

�� Most of the options for effectiveness-focused downsizing/cost-cutting are being pursued by the Centers, but the emphasis seems to have been more on restructuring rather than redesigning work.

�� Centers are drawing upon most of the possible approaches to ease the transitions of departing staff and to support the staff members that remain post-downsizing, but not all Centers are availing themselves of all the options. Counseling services in particular could be made more widely available to help both departing and remaining staff members (IRS and NRS) cope with the psychological and emotional stress of downsizing.

The information reported in this section is meant to illustrate the range of options that have been effectively used across the ten reporting Centers – a menu of choices for the manager in the CGIAR facing pressure to reduce costs once again. We hope that IARCs faced with the need to undertake downsizing in the future can learn from the experience of those Centers that have successfully coped with the challenge in the past.

Planning and preparing for staff reductions

All but one of the ten reporting Centers stated that a plan for laying off staff and restructur-ing work had been developed and communicated to the staff. Thus, most Centers seem to have followed the advice of the management literature to “plan, plan, plan” and “communi-cate, communicate, communicate.”

7 The survey format used to gather the data about Future Harvest Center downsizing practices is

reproduced in Appendix 1.

16

Among the nine Centers that replied, downsizing was driven mainly by a decrease in funding and a need to reorganize to increase effectiveness. In one further case, the Center in question did not have major layoffs per se in the previous five years, but did carry out some strategic staff changes due to changing priorities and let go about 20 NRS in administrative areas in the process.

Six Centers indicated that a longer-term organizational change strategy had been developed and communicated to staff. In one case, this was done as part of the process of shifting to a project-based management structure. Another Center reported that it was planning to review its strategy in 2001, and would consider decisions about its future structure at that time; in the meanwhile an interim structure with a reduced program of work was being implemented. A third Center observed humbly that although a restructuring process had been attempted, it was not especially well done.

Six Centers reported formulating long-term strategic human resources plans, including developing current and future job competencies inventories and current and anticipated job profiles. At one Center, a new position classification and salary structure was developed, including performance-based compensation. Another Center reported that the number and profiles of staff requirements were carefully determined before redundancies were implemented. One noted that this initiative was undertaken as part of the Medium Term Planning process, through which research programs were systematically monitoring their staffing needs and corporate needs were reviewed centrally. Another mentioned that this was partly done in the present in anticipation of future reductions.

Gender and Diversity considerations in downsizing

Only five Centers replied to a question about whether the gender balance in the Center was considered when downsizing decisions were made. One replied that reengineering decision criteria were considered first and gender balance was considered later. Another Center said gender balance was considered but that job functionality remained the decisive factor, while yet another stated that the fit with functional position descriptions was the only consideration. One more said that gender had not been an issue to date since the redundancies had all taken place in units populated exclusively by men.

Only four Centers discussed the impact of staff reductions on diversity. All stated that continuation of research activities, competency needs, performance, and funding constraints were considered as the main criteria for reduction of excess staff. All in all, although gender and diversity may have been considered, functionality remained the decisive factor guiding staff reduction decisions.

Communications

All ten Centers replied that a process had been developed to inform staff about upcoming layoffs. They reported that the process typically involved discussions with staff repre-sentative groups and each affected staff member. Information on the background and principles to be followed during the downsizing process was provided to staff through various interactions, for example at general staff meetings and through communiqués from the Director General (DG) to staff.

One Center reported that everything related to the downsizing process was communicated publicly in open meetings. Center management emphasized that staff could request a confidential discussion with the Director General or the Personnel Officer at any time.

17

In several of the Centers, staff reductions were carried out in consultation with the Staff Council and with their full participation. Discussions were held with national staff representative groups, in which benefits to which redundant staff are entitled were com-municated. Discussion with the staff council was held in advance so that the council would be prepared to receive staff inquiries and assist in information sharing. Presenta-tions from the Director of Finance and the Director General to the Staff Council helped convince the members of the Staff Council of the need for reductions.

Nine out of ten Centers replied that managers who were responsible for announcing layoff decisions to the staff member, received orientation in how to do so appropriately. In one Center, the Director General and Personnel Officer held individual meetings with staff (all on the same date) to notify them of his decision not to renew their contracts.

Nine of the Centers stated that trustees were generally kept abreast of major staff shifts including the causes of and strategy for downsizing, and the expected effect of staff reductions. Six Centers provided general information to CGIAR donors via their Medium Term Plans (MTPs). Four Centers provided general information to NARSs collaborators via their MTPs and two provided explanation via their MTPs to host country governments where legislation required this. Five Centers reported that because they were important local employers, they had contacted the Ministry of Social Affairs of the host country for advice on what assistance could be arranged, especially for local employees.

Making staff and cost reductions

Table 3.1 summarizes the different approaches taken and the frequency of their use by the ten Centers that underwent downsizing during the study period. All Centers used a combination of the ten measures, ranging from four Centers that used three of the inter-ventions listed below, to one Center that relied on all ten.

Table 3.1. Frequency of downsizing measures practiced by Future Harvest Centers Distribution of downsizing

interventions by IARC #… # Centers

where Downsizing measure undertaken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 practiced

Activities outsourced 9 Other collaborative alliances developed to substitute for in-house resources. 8

Selected (non-strategic) research activities eliminated (along with associated staff) 7

Tasks reallocated from IRS to NRS 7 NRS hiring freeze 7 IRS hiring freeze 6 Research activities streamlined (technology substituted for labor) 6

Across-the-board staff cuts made 3 IRS salary freeze 2 NRS salary freeze 2 Total # interventions undertaken by IARC 3 3 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10

The two most frequently used measures to reduce personnel were to outsource activities and/or develop other collaborative alliances to substitute for in-house execution of particular tasks. Several Centers drew up agreements with universities or NARSs to take over certain research activities along with the transfer of some of the Center’s staff.

18

Seven Centers noted that non-strategic research activities and their related staff were eliminated, and another seven reallocated tasks from IRS to NRS. Hiring freezes for NRS and IRS were implemented in seven and six Centers, respectively. (One wonders how the NRS in these Centers were able to take on additional work from IRS with reduced total numbers – Chapter 4 highlights the fact that the bulk of the staff reductions were made among national staff.) Research activities were streamlined at six Centers, with technology substituting for labor.

The general management and HR literatures discourage organizations from a few practices because of their known negative impact on overall productivity. Two of the practices that are cited as particularly deleterious are across-the-board cuts and salary freezes. It is therefore good news that across-the-board cuts were made in only three Centers, and IRS and NRS salary freezes were implemented in only two.

Other measures taken to reduce expenses

Other measures in addition to staff reductions were taken by Centers to reduce their expenses. Budget targets were reviewed and controls were enhanced. Research projects were also trimmed. Less travel, conference and meeting attendance was authorized, fewer publications were made, and some activities were cancelled.

Operating expenses such as amounts spent on energy, telephone, bus routes, service car, gasoline, photocopies, courier, etcetera were reduced. Subcontracting of services and outsourcing became more common, and additional cuts were made on purchases such as memberships, maintenance routines for grounds and buildings, subscriptions, and extra supplies. Outsourcing of medical services was obtained and a review of insurance policies to get better deals was made.

Capital spending was limited, and other cuts were made especially in the administrative areas that were fully funded by increasingly scarce core unrestricted funds. Unnecessary assets such as an airplane were sold.

Assisting staff that depart and staff that remain

All ten reporting Centers stated that their severance packages were fully compliant with, and usually exceeded what was legally mandated by host country labor laws. In addition to generous financial severance packages, eight of the Centers reported that the following support was provided in the job transition process to laid-off staff.

�� Counseling was made available. �� Staff members were informed of relevant job openings through various sources by

personnel services and colleagues. �� Personnel Services made an inventory of employment at the international organization

in the headquarters city and referred eligible staff. �� Outplacement services were made available to selected staff. �� Staff members were allowed to use communication facilities (email, fax, telephone)

during their transition period. �� Flexibility was allowed in the event a staff member needed time off for applications

and/or job interviews. �� Assistance was given in case of naturalization and obtaining a residence permit after

expiration of contract.

19

To assist departing and remaining staff, seven Centers provided some type of career coun-seling/job outplacement services to both IRS and NRS staff. At one Center, a five-day course to prepare staff for life after [IARC] was provided. At five Centers, information was provided to redundant staff, with suggestions on how to succeed in transitioning between jobs. Downsized staff members were assisted in their search for alternate employment wherever they required such assistance, by way of reference letters, certificates from the Institute and personal help by talking to organizations with vacancies. A number of Centers provided outplacement facilities on an individual basis for both IRS and NRS as determined by the Director General. In another case, application training and CV writing were sponsored by the Center’s Staff Council. Eight Centers noted that a system for generating letters of recommendation for departing staff was used. At several, Certificates of Service were also issued on request.

Reorganization of units was also done to enhance work efficiency in spite of the reduction in staff. Regular meetings were conducted in the departments through supervisory channels to monitor and redistribute the work so that it did not suffer due to reduced staff strength. Redeployment of skilled staff from departments where their skills were required was carefully planned. At seven Centers, training was provided to the remaining IRS and NRS staff that took on additional responsibilities. Cross training was provided to prepare staff better for sharing more responsibilities, and financial rewards were given.

Laid off staff were given preference over new applicants, given equivalent qualification and experience, when some positions fell vacant and had to be filled. Others mentioned that some NRS were given short-term jobs “in selected cases” or “on a professional need basis only”. At seven Centers, downsized staff members were given opportunities to work at the Center on a part-time or consultancy basis. Although both IRS and NRS were reported to receive these opportunities, one Center mentioned that this happens more with IRS, but that a new policy in the organization provides that staff separated involuntarily may be rehired after two years.

Five Centers replied that access to job retraining programs was made available to national staff. In one Center, for example, advice was provided for the creation of small enter-prises (workers association companies) that were later hired back to provide outsourced services to the organization.

Staff morale was monitored during and after periods of layoffs at all Centers. Four Centers monitored both IRS and NRS. This was done informally, unofficially or anecdotally at staff councils. Efforts were reportedly made to boost the morale of both IRS and NRS downsizing “survivors” at seven Centers. The morale of the Staff was improved in part through continuous dialogue. Staff whose performance was very good were called and reassured that they will be retained and need not worry about their job security.

One Center contracted with a psychologist to provide counseling for staff for a limited period of time in an attempt to avoid counter-effects. Several staff took advantage of it and the measure was deemed quite successful. In some cases, the HR manager counseled staff as well.

Repatriation counseling was provided to expatriate staff returning to their home countries in three of the Centers.

20

Best practices

The most effective practices Centers mentioned using in carrying out staff reductions were attributed to the active involvement of the Human Resource Managers in choreo-graphing and coaching the process, and to full joint participation of the Staff Councils. One Center that had previously downsized, had learned the strategic value of building a transparent and participatory decision-making and communication process, focused on the understanding of the constraints and the collective search for solutions. Treating people with dignity and communicating the reasons and rationale behind the decisions to staff on a regular basis, accompanied by open discussion in the staff associations, made the process more agile. Also, working with staff councils in advance of reductions to discuss plans, reasons and treatment proved beneficial toward identifying hotspots or communication breakdowns.

The impact of the layoff process was softened by using attractive severance packages as incentives for voluntary lay-offs and early retirement benefits, by creating small enter-prises of former workers to who were hired back to provide outsourced services, and by assisting redundants in getting jobs in the local market. Personalized individual notifica-tion of reduction by the Director General was considered by all staff as an effective and caring approach to deliver such a sensitive message.

Center managers responsible for taking decisions on staff reductions felt they had the necessary skills and knowledge to handle downsizing sensitively and effectively. One of their main strengths throughout downsizing was practicing social sensitivity. They noted that good listening skills, empathy and knowledge of relevant cultural issues, good interpersonal and communication skills were all important qualities to be exercised throughout staff reductions. Because of the different levels of competency required in this area, some managers were felt to be more knowledgeable and skilled than others. As such, training was suggested as helpful.

One Center synthesized its most effective practices to implementing downsizing in four categories as follows:

Timing and Process: Cautious timing in the process of reduction was used. The reduction in strength was first carried out among the scientific and managerial groups, then among other IRS, and finally among nationally recruited staff. This created a feeling of fairness in that the reduction took place not only in the lower levels but also across the board.

Participation: The Staff Council, consisting of the representatives of staff and manage-ment, was taken into confidence from the beginning, and the channel of staff council as well as supervisory channels were used to convince staff of the need for reductions. Their suggestions also were considered for arriving at a compensation package, which ultimately was well accepted by all cadres of employees.

Compensation: For IRS and NRS categories, the Institute was not burdened with the need for total severance funding immediately, as the staff were offered pensions over a period of 120 months out of the full compensation amount. This is proved to be beneficial to both the Institute and staff, since the Institute did not have to pay out a huge amount immediately and staff members were assured of a monthly income for the next ten years.

Help and Support: The staff members who were laid off were given necessary help to seek employment outside. This included letters of recommendation, certificates of

21

employment, individual talks with the Human Resource departments of employers wherever vacancies occurred with a view to rehabilitate our staff. A detailed discussion with managers was held on the need for a mechanism of staff reduction and advice was given to them to discuss this with their staff.

The most effective practices that Centers reported having used in managing the after-effects of staff reductions were also based on the participation of the staff in the process. Managers identified the move to project-based research as the beginning of the downsizing. The ensuing meetings designed to build and define the projects and to set priorities helped significantly in managing the reduced staffing levels.

Through management and staff consultative meetings, the tasks of redistributing work and responsibilities; reorganizing units; making acting assignments with commensurate financial compensation for additional work; and training remaining staff in needed areas and new roles, were in most cases successful.

Individual departments handled the after-effects of staff reduction by re-distributing work with cooperation from Staff Council members, rewriting the Job Descriptions of enriched jobs and job evaluation; placing a total freeze on recruitment so that staff strength was not again increased, and adhering strictly to the budgeted allocation of salary costs. Overload-ing of remaining staff was avoided by questioning what would happen to the redundant functions duties in the decision making process and making someone responsible for the hand-over/transition.

Frequent and transparent communications of decisions were made to affected and remain-ing staff through regular staff meetings and Staff Council. Sharing or communicating with respect to the problems and how to tackle the issues, in addition to following up and being responsive to the needs of acknowledging the pain and sadness of being laid off or of dismissing someone, were mentioned as being extremely helpful. Providing external emotional and employment support to identified redundant staff through motivation and workshops facilitated transition.

Six Centers reported confidence that their Human Resources departments had the necessary knowledge, skills and resources to handle downsizing sensitively and effectively. They emphasized that the HR manager must have a very positive attitude to go along with the Centers’ institutional culture. They valued the experience that several HR managers had accumulated while implementing layoffs of various magnitudes (2-500 people), as well as their knowledge of local law, customs and sensitivities.

They highlighted that the role of HR is to support management in the staff reduction process, providing data and information, advising on communication issues, assisting with individual announcements, as well as identifying and monitoring external support to emotional acceptance and repositioning of redundant staff. HRM is learning from staff and staff members are learning from HRM.

The Centers stated that setting up additional programs for career counseling, resume preparation, psychological counseling, repatriation issues as well as resources to cushion financial impact of severance and for extensive post severance counseling would be helpful. Furthermore, it would be useful for HR staff to receive training on advice to be given to managers and staff in these situations.

22

4. STAFFING TRENDS IN THE FUTURE HARVEST CENTERS, 1995-20018

This section provides a statistical snapshot of the impact of downsizing on staff demogra-phics in the Future Harvest Centers, based on data collected from the 16 Future Harvest Centers over the period 1995-2001.9 By looking at the numbers and trends in staffing patterns over the seven-year period, we get a sense of how hiring and firing decisions have shaped the current overall endowment of human resources in the CGIAR system. We report on changes with regard to: �� total staff numbers (IRS and NRS); �� the distribution of staff by position level (IRS and NRS); �� diversity trends, as reflected in the distribution of IRS by their region of origin, �� the balance between men and women among IRS and NRS; �� age distribution of staff; and �� “exit pathways” taken by staff that have left the Centers (including gender-disaggregated

turnover rates).

Several findings emerge from the data. The 6 percent overall reduction in international staff during the study period fell most heavily on the older and more senior ranks of scientific staff and management. The 20 percent reduction in national staff during the period was distributed across all ranks of NRS, but had the effect of decreasing the ratio of international to national scientific/technical staff by more than 20 percent. It is not clear whether the reduction in the support staff ratio has been offset by more efficient use of research technology, or if everyone is just working harder!

In terms of gender and diversity, the FH Centers are moving incrementally towards greater representation of women (both IRS and NRS) and World Bank Part II country nationals,10 8 This section is based on two earlier papers produced upon request of the CGIAR Executive Council: G&D working paper no. 32, ‘Selected Trend Data on Gender and Diversity in the Future Harvest Centres 1995-2001 (Oct 2001), and G&D working paper no. 33, ‘Updated Analysis of Future Harvest Centre Demographics’ (Apr 2002).

9 The CG Gender Staffing Program (GSP) began collecting and analyzing demographic data in the early 1990s on staffing trends among international staff. When the GSP evolved into the Gender and Diversity Program, its mandate expanded to include broader diversity issues and data were collected for the first time on staffing patterns across all CGIAR personnel – international and national staff. In 2000 and 2001, a full data set was obtained from all 16 Future Harvest Centers describing all staff movements between January 1, 1995 and August 31, 2001 – hires, departures and total staff numbers for IRS and NRS by gender, nationality, age, staff position level, tenure, etc. All data cited in this chapter are derived from the survey information obtained from the 16 Centers. A few gaps in Center reported data led to incomplete information for some disaggregated items, such that not all the disaggregated data (e.g. IRS position levels by gender and national origin) add up to the global total. We believe these inconsistencies are not statistically significant. This document also reports on CG-wide trends only; Center-specific data and trends analysis will be shared directly with each of the respective Centers. Appendices 2 and 3 contain the formats used to collect the data. Appendices 4 and 5 contain the tables with the core data for IRS and NRS.

10 World Bank “Part I” countries are those that provide donor funding to the Bank; “Part II” countries are recipients of World Bank grants and loans. In terms of the categories used in this study to identify region of origin, Australia-New Zealand, Europe and North America are classified as Part I countries,

23

although these groups are still concentrated in the lower ranks of the organizational hierarchy. Of all IRS categories, the greatest relative increase in numbers has been in women from the World Bank Part II countries.

A cautionary note is in order concerning the interpretation of the CGIAR aggregated data presented here. There is considerable variation across Centers in terms of their gender and cultural diversity distribution, so much so that a CG “average” profile is almost meaningless, especially in terms of gender staffing. We recognize that because of the geographic locations of the Centers and their different subject matter emphases, each Center faces unique constraints and opportunities in terms of the demographics of its global and local labor pools. Holding all Centers to the same expectations in terms of a gender and diversity profile is thus inappropriate. However, it is not inappropriate to encourage all Centers to continually examine how well they are doing at attracting, retaining, developing and promoting a diverse staff so that internal demographics increasingly resemble the relevant reference pool.

Total Staff

As of August 2001, Future Harvest Centers had a total staff of 7,851, of which 5,763 were men and 2,088 were women; 6,829 were nationally recruited staff (NRS) and 1,022 were internationally recruited staff (IRS) (see Table 4.1). Proportionally speaking, female staff rose from 24.1 percent to 26.5 percent over the seven-year period, and IRS rose from 11.2 percent to 13.0 percent. Figure 4.1 shows these trends graphically.

Table 4.1. Summary of IRS and NRS staff changes, 1 Jan 1995 to 31 Aug 2001 1995 2001 % change Staff category Total % of total Total % of total 1995-2001 IRS females 148 1.5% 182 2.3% 23.0% IRS males 941 9.7% 840 10.7% -10.7%

Total IRS 1,089 11.2% 1,022 13.0% -6.2% NRS females 2,190 22.6% 1,906 24.2% -13.0% NRS males 6,429 66.2% 4,923 62.6% -23.4%

Total NRS 8,619 88.8% 6,829 87.0% -20.8% Grand total 9,708 100.0% 7,851 100.0% -19.1%

Table 1 and Figure 1 also highlight the 19 percent decline between 1995 and 2001 in total staff, from 9,708 to 7,851 staff members. However, staff cuts were not uniformly distributed across the 16 Centers; more than 85 percent of these occurred in the four Centers that began the period with the largest staff bases – CIAT, ICRISAT, IITA and IRRI. Staff cuts also affected some sub-groups more than others: the number of NRS males declined by more than 23 percent, compared to a decline of 13 percent among NRS females and 10 percent among IRS males, and a 23 percent increase among IRS females. It is noteworthy that in the face of overall declining staff numbers, the absolute number of female IRS actually increased from 148 to 182, although this group still only represented 2.3 percent of the total as of August 2001.

while Africa, East Asia-Pacific, Latin America-Caribbean, Middle East-North Africa, and South Asia are classified as Part II countries.

24

Distribution of staff by position category

Table 4.2 shows the distribution of international and national staff by position categories in 1995 and 2001. For internationally recruited staff, the data show that most of the reductions took place among management cadres and the upper ranks of scientists (IRS categories 1 and 2 declined by 19 percent, and IRS categories 3 and 4 declined by 30 percent). This contrasts with an increase in the number of scientists and support professionals, and a large jump in the number of post-doctoral fellows (although the 1995 figure for post-docs may be in error – the number seems far too low).

25

Figure 4.1. Total staff in the Future Harvest Centers, 1Jan1995 to 31Aug2001

6429

2190

941

148

6490

2247

946

152

6058

2139

948

169

5271

1856

917

163

5057

1829

896

177

4915

1810

875

170

4815

1823

842

164

4923

1906

840

182

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1/1995 12/1995 12/1996 12/1997 12/1998 12/1999 12/2000 8/2001

IRS Females

* Note: numbers in italics are total staff numbers for that category.

IRS MalesNRS FemalesNRS Males

Staf

Int1.2.3.4.5.6.7.T

Na1.2.3.4.

5.6.Ta

Table 4.2. IRS and NRS changes by position level, 1Jan1995 and 31Aug2001

f category / Position level 1995 2001 % change 1995-2001

ernationally recruited staff # staff % of IRS # staff % of IRS DDGs and Directors 82 8% 75 7% -8.5% Research Program or Admin Heads 176 16% 135 13% -23.3% Principal Scientists 181 17% 120 12% -33.7% Senior Scientists 292 27% 213 21% -27.1% Scientists/Support Professionals 193 18% 246 24% 27.5% Associate Scientists/professionals 151 14% 144 14% -4.6% Post-Doctoral Fellows 14 1% 89 9% 535.7% otal internationally recruited staff 1,089 1,022

tionally recruited staff # staff a % of NRS # staff % of NRS Managers/supervisors 464 6% 368 5% -20.7% Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 532 6% 466 7% -12.4% Other researchers/technicians 1,703 21% 1,363 20% -20.0% Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 1,612 20% 1,412 21% -12.4%

Other admin staff & support services 2,543 31% 2,149 31% -15.5% Field labor 1,341 16% 1,071 16% -20.1% otal nationally recruited staff 8,195 6,829 Note that historical data disaggregating NRS staff by position level were not available from several

Centers, hence this number under-reports the distribution of NRS by more than 400 staff.

26

In the case of nationally recruited staff, cuts were fairly evenly distributed across all five position levels. What is noteworthy here is the significant shift in the ratio between IRS scientific staff and the NRS scientific and technical staff that support them, as shown in Figure 4.2. The proportion of IRS scientists to NRS scientists/technicians fell from 1:2.4 in 1995 to 1:1.9 in 2001. Considering that the 1995 NRS data are underreported, the actual 1995 ratio was probably higher and thus the decline in the proportion even more marked over the seven-year period.

Figure 4.2. Relative changes in total IRS and NRS researchers, 1995-2001

835 850 877 854 844 827 793 812

430 429 446

1465 14831405

1212

520518513 432 441

1122111511111124

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1/1995 12/1995 12/1996 12/1997 12/1998 12/1999 12/2000 8/2001

Num

ber o

f sta

ff

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

Rat

io N

RS:

IRS

rese

arch

ers

Ratio NRS:IRS researchers Total IRS scientists NRS senior researchersOther NRS rschr/technicians

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 disaggregate further the data on regional distribution of staff. Figure 3 shows the changes in the distribution of IRS by staff category and region of origin. Congruent with the data in Table 4.2, Figure 4.3 illustrates the decline among natives of both World Bank Part I and Part II countries across the top four staffing grades, compared with increases for both regional groupings in the three lowest grades. The total percentage of World Bank Part II natives increased marginally, from 47.4 percent in 1995 to 47.7 percent in 2001. The increase was due largely to a higher attrition rate in IRS from Part I countries, rather than to stronger recruitment of Part II country professionals. In terms of relative distribution across the staffing categories, given an overall ratio between internationally recruited Part I and Part II staff that is almost 1:1, the regional distribution of staff in the upper position ranks appears skewed towards Part I countries. Part II country nationals are in a clear majority only in the category of post-doctoral fellows.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the changes in the distribution of IRS by staff category and sex. Sharp declines in male staff at the upper ranks of the staff ladder are clearly apparent, as is the marked gender imbalance at all levels. The modest increase in the number of women in the lower ranks is encouraging, but the number of new female scientists (39

27

joined the CGIAR over the study period) is still overshadowed by the number of new male post-doctoral fellows alone (+63).

28

Figure 4.3. IRS by staffing category and region of origin, 1995 and 2001

Figure 4.4. IRS by staffing category and gender, 1995 and 2001

6451

6 5

128

96

10 7

163

92

10 0

250

180

4231

135

188

39 49 56 51

24 2643

106

9

36

0

50

100

150

200

250

Num

ber o

f sta

ff

DDGs/Directors

Rsch Prog/Admin Heads

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Sci/Support Prof'ls

Assoc Sci/Prof'lsPost-docs

Male IRS 1995Male IRS 2001Female IRS 1995Female IRS 2001

Part I country nationals 2001Part II country nationals 1995Part II country nationals 2001

45 36

25 21

70

61

68

51

81

51

92

53

174

126118

9587

123

87

109

38

37

42 43

20

59

32

78

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180N

umbe

r of s

taff

DDGs/Directors

Rsch Prog/Admin Heads

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Sci/Support Prof'ls

Assoc Sci/Prof'lsPost-docs

Part I country nationals 1995

29

Additional gender and diversity indicators among IRS

Figure 4.5 shows changes in the distribution of IRS men and women by region. Except in the case of Africa, the percentage of male IRS declined for every region, while the per-centage of female IRS increased across almost all regions, especially in Africa and East Asia and the Pacific. Even with the decreases in staff between 1995 and 2001, Europe and North America are still the regions that provide the largest total numbers of staff. These two regions also contribute the majority of women IRS; 105 of the total 184 female IRS come from Europe or North America.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% o

f tot

al IR

S

Africa

E

F

Gender tren

Figures 4.6 aIRS and NRSsection, it is internationalranges from national staffISNAR. In tlocated in Noof CIFOR is

We also notefor female IRgender balanconsidered apknow that wo

Asia/Pacific

EEurope/Ctl Asia

Latin Am/Carib

Mid East/NAfrica

South Asia

Australia/NZEurope

North America

% IRS M ales 1995% IRS M ales 2001

W orld BankPart I

countries

W orld BankPart II countries

igure 4.5. IRS by region of origin and gender, 1995 and 2001

% IRS Females 1995% IRS Females 2001

ds among IRS and NRS

nd 4.7 illustrate the changing proportions of women as a percentage of total , respectively, by Future Harvest Center. As noted at the beginning of this

clear that there is considerable variation in the participation of both ly and nationally recruited women staff. In the case of IRS, female staff 11 percent at WARDA to 27 percent at IFPRI and CIFOR. With regard to , the range is even greater – 9 percent at WARDA compared to 79 percent at he case of both national and internationally recruited staff, the Centers rthern countries clearly have an easier time attracting female staff. The case an interesting outlier however, intriguing enough to warrant further study.

d earlier that it is not the purpose of this study to set target participation rates S or NRS. For NRS recruitment especially, each Center faces a different ce in its local labor pool, and local culture may also affect whether it is propriate, for example, for women to work as field laborers (although we men represent more than half of the world’s farmers). For the time being, the

30

Figure 4.6. Female IRS as % of total IRS, by Future Harvest Center, 1995 and 2001

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

CIFOR

IFPRI

ISNAR

CIAT

IPGRI

CIP

ICRAF

CIMMYT

ILRI

CGIAR Average

IITA

ICRISAT

IWMI

IRRI

WARDA

ICLARM

ICARDA

% Female IRS 1/1/1995% Female IRS 8/31/2001

1995 CG average: 13.6%2001 CG average: 17.8%

Figure 4.7. Female NRS as % of total NRS by Future Harvest Center, 1995 & 2001

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

ISNAR

IFPRI

IPGRI

CIFOR

IRRI

IWMI

CIAT

ICRAF

CIP

ICLARM

CGIAR Average

CIMMYT

ILRI

ICARDA

ICRISAT

IITA

WARDA

% Female NRS 1/1/1995% Female NRS 8/31/2001

1995 CG average: 26.4%2001 CG average: 27.9%

31

CGIAR and the Gender and Diversity Program should continue to monitor these trends, and support the Centers in their efforts to more effectively recruit, retain and promote women.

NRS position distribution by gender

Figure 4.8 indicates that among nationally recruited staff, the proportion of women across staffing categories is much higher than for IRS. Given the strong representation of NRS women in the category of senior researchers, one wonders whether there might be opportunities to provide targeted training that might channel these staff members into the ranks of IRS. Such a strategy may not work in all Centers for all activities, but it might be used selectively to improve the overall gender balance among scientific staff.

Figure 4.8. Percentage female participation by NRS position category, 1995-2001

20.3%

15.4%

20.8%

24.3%

14.3%

43.5%

17.5%

39.5%

27.8% 25.8%

38.8%

47.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Managers/supervisors

Seniorresearchers

Otherresearchers/technicians

Professionalstaff

Other admin/support staff

Field labor

% o

f NR

S w

omen

in jo

b ca

tego

ry .

January 1995

* Note: 1995 data do not include CIAT, CIFOR or ICLARM.

Average 2001 female NRS as % of total = 27.9%

August 2001

IRS and NRS changes by age

Table 4.3 shows the age distribution of FH IRS and NRS as of August 2001. The notable feature of these data is the differential distribution of men and women across the five age categories. For both IRS and NRS, the “age bulge” is younger for women than for men. Table 4.3 shows the percentage distribution of male and female IRS and NRS by age ranges. The data do not permit cross-tabulation between age and position level, but it is logical to expect that they correlate fairly well. The conclusion is that as female staff age, the balance between men and women in more senior level positions should become more even – assuming women are retained at similar rates to men as they mature, a point which we shall discuss further with regard to Figure 4.13.

32

Rates and causes of staff turnover

65 54

-107 -108

43

12886

-528

-264

115 104

-101-46

9 -9-10

-646

-201

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 55

Staff age range

Num

ber o

f sta

ff hi

red/

depa

rted

Male IRS net changesFemale IRS net changesMale NRS net changesFemale NRS net changes

Figure 4.9 shows the net staff changes for male and female IRS and NRS by age bracket over the period 1995-2001. It indicates clearly that the majority of staff layoffs occurred in the older age brackets. However, it is interesting to note the different patterns between IRS and NRS, and male and female staff. The largest number of net NRS staff departures (for both men and women) took place in the middle age bracket (35-45), followed by the age brackets (45-55) and (55 and over). In percentage terms, a higher proportion of female NRS net departures occurred in the 35-45 year bracket than for male net departures – 58 percent vs. 45 percent, respectively. Male IRS net departure numbers are evenly divided between the age brackets of (45-55) and (55 and over). The numbers are mixed for women IRS, as shown in Figure 4.9.

Table 4.3. Age distribution of IRS and NRS, 31Aug2002 Age Range 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 55IRS-M age range as % of total IRS-M -- 6% 34% 42% 17%

IRS-F age range as % of total IRS-F -- 20% 40% 34% 7%

NRS-M age range as% of total NRS-M 1% 18% 41% 34% 6%

NRS-F age range as % of total NRS-F 1% 32% 38% 22% 5%

Figure 4.9. Net changes in CGIAR staff numbers by age range, 1995-2001 (total hires - total departures)

Figure 4.10 shows the different reasons for IRS departures, by World Bank Part I and II countries of staff origin. The notable feature here are the higher numbers of Part I origin staff departures due to voluntary reasons, relative to the a higher proportion of Part II origin staff departures for all other reasons. The numbers suggest that Part II origin staff probably lack attractive employment alternatives to working in the Future Harvest Centers, compared to their colleagues from the North.

33

Figure 4.10. Departure reasons for Part I & II IRS, 1995-2001, 1995-2001

209

149

1811

25

9

79

142

26

1123

40

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Voluntary departure Nonrenewal of fixedterm contract

Early retirement Retirement Dismissal withseverance pay

Fired fornonperformance

Reason for departure

Num

ber o

f dep

artu

res

IRS departures from Part I countriesIRS departures from Part II countries

Total Part I IRS departures: 421Total Part II IRS departures: 285Total IRS departures, 1995-2001: 706

Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show the gender-disaggregated reasons for IRS and NRS depar-tures, respectively. Table 4.4 teases out some of the finer distinctions in the trend data among the four categories of staff. It is interesting to note that for both IRS and NRS, the percentage of women departing for voluntary reasons is significantly higher than for men. Unfortunately, this category heading itself covers a number of possible reasons for seek-ing employment elsewhere, from pursuing better employment opportunities elsewhere, to taking long-term family leave, to leaving the institution because of dissatisfaction with the workplace. The Gender & Diversity Program has a more in-depth study planned to discern the underlying dynamics of the differences in men and women’s decision bases for voluntarily leaving the Future Harvest Centers.

depVoNoEarRetDisDeaFire

Table 4.4. Reasons for staff departures by gender & recruitment group Reason as a % of total

Reason for staff arture

IRS-M departures

IRS-F departures

NRS-M departures

NRS-F departures

luntary departure 38% 48% 31% 53% nrenewal of fixed term contract 43% 41% 12% 13% ly retirement 5% 1% 27% 17% irement 5% 1% 4% 3% missal w/severance pay 7% 7% 22% 12% th -- -- 1% 1% d for nonperformance 1% 2% 2% 1%

34

Figure 4.11. Reasons for IRS departures by gender, (total departures, 1995-2001)

287

319

36 4154

11

8169

2 211 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Voluntary departure Nonrenewal of fixedterm contract

Early retirement Retirement Dismissal withseverance pay

Fired fornonperformance

Reason for departure

Num

ber o

f IR

S de

part

ures Male IRS departures, 1995-2001

Female IRS departures, 1995-2001

Figure 4.12. Reasons for NRS departures by gender (total staff departures, 1995-2001)

877

330

756

113

619

196

10

5341

8

132

40

151

606

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Voluntarydeparture

Nonrenewal offixed term contract

Early retirement Retirement Dismissal withseverance pay

Death Fired fornonperformance

Reason for departure

Num

ber o

f dep

artu

res

.

Male NRS departures, 1995-2001Female NRS departures, 1995-2001

35

Another feature of these data are the lower proportions of women relative to men who are leaving due to early retirement and retirement. Given the lower proportions of women in the older age brackets, this is not surprising.

Finally, Figure 4.13 takes a look at the differential rates of male and female IRS departures and net changes between 1995 and 2001. The good news here in terms of increasing international staff diversity in the Future Harvest Centers, is that the numbers and proportion of IRS women has increased almost every year during the study period. The less good news is that the proportion of IRS women departures has also exceeded men’s in all but one of the seven years. It should be noted that the relatively small numbers of total IRS women in the FH Centers, and the even small numbers of female departures and new hires, make these data somewhat unreliable. However, it is still true that the larger gap between IRS females’ departures and net turnover means that the Centers are working harder to recruit new women to grow their representation in the Centers, than for men. Considering how costly and time consuming it is for the Centers to recruit new female staff, it is logical to recommend that they consider investing more attention in retaining the women already employed. Again, the findings of the G&D Program survey of men and women’s motives for leaving CGIAR employment should provide guidance to the Centers concerning how to better keep their valued female staff.

Figure 4.13. IRS departures and net staff changes* by gender, Future Harvest Centers (% change, 1995-2001)

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

% st

affin

g ch

ange

vs. p

revio

us ye

ar to

tal

Male departures Male net changesFemale departures Female net changes

* Total changes for all internationally recruited staff position levels.

36

5. CONCLUSIONS

Principle findings

In the seven-year period reviewed, the Future Harvest Centers downsized by 19 percent, shedding a total of 1,857 staff members. The information obtained from the question-naires provides us with a sense of how downsizing was implemented at the Centers. Those Centers that engaged in downsizing did so in response to external factors such as overall budget reductions, and/or shifts from majority unrestricted funding to majority restricted or project funding in the organization. We have little information regarding the expected benefits or actual impact on the Centers’ efficiency, effectiveness, and overall performance. The scope of the study did not encompass a performance or productivity evaluation; nor did it pretend to emit an opinion regarding the success, results or human consequences of the strategies implemented.11 The performance indicators necessary for such an evaluation were not available for this effort. However, if we evaluate how the Centers performed strictly in terms of the implementation of downsizing, we can say that overall the Centers seem to have done a respectable job of following the basic principles of good downsizing practice.

Planning: The ten Future Harvest Centers that carried out downsizing all indicated that they devoted time to planning their downsizing approach and activities, although there is not a clear sense of the time nor the process used for planning. One gathers that the decision to downsize and the implementation process were both driven from Center headquarters, and that related activities generally flowed from top to bottom of the organizational hierarchy.

More than half of the Centers engaged in various levels of planning before undertaking the downsizing process. Plans for laying off staff and restructuring work were developed and communicated to the staff. In several cases, a longer-term organizational change strategy was also developed and communicated to the staff, as was a shift toward a project based management structure.

Of particular importance was the development of long-term strategic human resources plan reported in a few Centers, that includes a current and future job competencies inventory, and current and anticipated job profiles, which. However, only one of the Centers indicated that they took gender or diversity considerations into account when making decisions about downsizing. Other Centers stated that they put priority on functional aspects of job descriptions and staff profiles to fit them. This suggests that at most Centers, the desirable workforce traits are still conceived of as purely scientific or professional, and the Centers are not integrating into their thinking the “business case for diversity” reasons for actively seeking a better gender and diversity balance in their staff.

Strategies used for downsizing: The strategy used for downsizing in response to cost-cut requirements at the CGIAR Centers, was basically workforce reduction. Among the 11 The data referred to in this study were also provided by the Centers’ Human Resource Managers and/or

Deputy Director Generals for Administration. Thus, they probably describe management’s intentions in implementing downsizing. A different, broader (and more complex) study might also evaluate perceptions of the Centers’ downsizing efforts from the perspective of “victims” and “survivors.” No doubt a somewhat different story would be told.

37

methods used throughout the Centers were outplacements, retirement incentives, buyout packages, layoffs, outplacement assistance, induced redeployment, and transfers.

There were also hints of a possible work redesign strategy being implemented. Centers did report an intended phasing out of functions or hierarchical levels and reorganization of units to enhance work efficiency in spite of the reduction in staff. Cross training was provided to prepare staff better for sharing more responsibilities, and financial rewards were given. In several Centers, a hiring freeze was applied on the positions that fell vacant because of resignation by staff for personal reasons, and responsibilities were reassigned in the unit. Redeployment of redundant skilled staff to departments where their skills were required was carefully planned.

Support for victims and survivors: The questionnaires reflect that the support provided in the job transition process to laid-off staff is to be praised for its thoroughness and great sensitivity. The layoff victims were treated with respect and dignity. The mechanisms used to support them were extensive as well as creative. There was barely a mention of support for survivors although it was stated that a psychologist was contracted to provide counseling for a limited period of time in an attempt to avoid counter-effects; it was not clear whether this was made available for remaining staff as well.

Human Resource assets: It is not clear from the study data to what extent employees were considered assets instead of costs. In most cases, it seems that the functionality of the position was the decisive factor in downsizing, rather than the individual employee’s competence, performance history, wealth of technical knowledge, or other qualifications.

Participation: With a few notable exceptions, the data suggest there may be room for improvement in terms of promoting broad staff participation in the downsizing process. However, several Centers did proactively involve their staff associations from the beginning, and relied on them as two-way communications channels and partners in the decision-making process. We encourage other Centers to learn from these examples.

Communication: Information obtained reveals that communication regarding the reduction was frequent and widespread and that the notification was done discreetly on an individual basis, respecting human dignity. It also confirms that the Human Resources departments played a critical role in the process, and that the staff was kept well informed through various communications about the economic situation and the implications thereof. Terms of dismissal were clear and concise. There was honesty and clarity involved in both verbal written notifications.

Leadership: There is evidence in the replies that supportive and committed leadership was practiced in the downsizing processes at the individual Centers. Top management was visible and responsible in providing direction and overall vision to the staff. In some cases, the Director General directly engaged with the Staff Council or representative national staff groups. In one case, the Director General was also in charge of notifying the displaced staff personally.

Impact of downsizing on gender and diversity balance: In spite of the fact that only one Center gave consideration to G&D matters in taking downsizing decisions, the staff demographic data indicate that the Centers are moving very incrementally towards a greater representation of women IRS and NRS, as well as IRS from World Bank Part II countries. Although one might wish for faster movement in this direction (since both

38

groups are still seriously underrepresented in Future Harvest Centers relative to the available labor pool), the fact that these marginal gains were made under conditions of downsizing is encouraging. On the other hand, the data in Chapter 4 indicate that among IRS, it was mostly older and more senior staff who bore the brunt of layoffs (almost all of whom were men to start with), so it may be that generally higher rates of attrition due to age are behind the subtle demographic shifts.

Recommendations

While each Center has been affected differently, these changes are forcing the Centers to adopt new behaviors, and in some cases are calling for shifts in organizational culture. Most Centers were already high performing organizations before the latest wave of changes, but the new challenges require that they redouble their efforts not necessarily by working harder, but by working smarter. This requires a strategic vision of the skill-sets the Centers will require as they look to the future – scientists who learn together in an environment that prizes “out of the box” thinking and productivity.

Each of the Future Harvest Centers operates within a unique geographical context, scientific domain, network of partnerships, and organizational culture. Under the circumstances, particular care must be taken not to assume that all will react similarly to the challenges of downsizing. Diversity is inherent in the very nature of the Future Harvest Centers, and the collective mental programming of the organizations and their members must necessarily be considered.

Nevertheless, it is strongly advised that any downsizing or structural change be preceded by a thorough analysis of the entire organizational context, followed by a detailed planning process to determine the most appropriate avenue of change. The FH Centers must have a clear idea of their missions, challenges and opportunities in order to know why, how and to what extent they must undergo structural changes, if any. This can be greatly facilitated when there are clear, descriptive and preferably quantitative evaluation criteria and processes built into the organizations standard operating procedures, that are capable of measuring both individual and organizational performance and impact.

Careless downsizing for reasons of strict cost or budget reduction, instead of maintaining or increasing the competitive advantage of the Future Harvest Centers through its highly qualified technical staff, could reduce the value of strategic human assets and damage the organization in the long run. Maintaining certain highly specialized staff within the Future Harvest Centers might prove more profitable than the long-term cost of firing them. If we also consider that downsizing could lead to the dispersal of the proprietary knowledge and experience on which the competitive advantage of the Centers is based, additional caution must be exercised when undertaking any such restructuring.

Though the scope of this study does not encase a complete review of the methods currently being exercised to evaluate organizational and employee performance at the various Centers, they remain the primary inputs to any restructuring process. The efficient deployment of any existing performance evaluation system of staff and organizational productivity, would surely contribute to provide the concrete measures upon which to build the staircase leading to the achievement of the strategic, business and technology plans of the organization.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acosta, Anne and Vicki Wilde (Apr 2002). “Updated Analysis of Future Harvest Centre Demographics”. G&D working paper no. 33. CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program, Nairobi.

Acosta, Anne and Vicki Wilde (Oct 2001). “Selected Trend Data on Gender and Diversity in the Future Harvest Centres 1995-2001”. G&D working paper no. 32. CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program, Nairobi.

Adler, Nancy J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Third Edition, Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing

Appelbaum, Steven H.; Andrea Everard, and Loretta T.S. Hung (1999). “Strategic downsizing: Critical success factors,” Management Decision, 37:7, pp. 535-552.

Cameron, K.S. (1994a). “Strategies for successful organizational downsizing,” Human Resource Management, 33:2, pp. 189-211.

Cameron, K.S. (1994b). “Guest editor’s note: Investigating organizational downsizing – Fundamental issues,” Human Resource Management, 33:2, pp. 183-8.

Cascio, W.F. (1993). “Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned?” Academy of Management Executive, 7:1, pp. 95-104.

Dougherty, D. and Bowman, E.H. (1995). “The effects of organizational downsizing on product innovation,” California Management Review, 37: 4, pp. 28-44.

Freeman, S.J. (1994). “Organizational downsizing as convergence or reorientation: Implications for human resource management,” Human Resource Management, 33:2, pp. 213-38.

Henkoff, Ronald (1990). “Cost-cutting: How to do it right,” Fortune, April 9, 1990, pp. 26-33.

Keidel, Robert W. (1994). “Rethinking organizational design,” Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 8:4, pp. 12-30.

Hamel,G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Harbour, Jerry L. (1994). The Process Reengineering Workbook, White Plains, NY: Quality Resources.

Harrington, H. James; Erik K.C. Esseling; and Harm van Nimwegen (1997). Business Process Improvement Workbook, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Henkoff, Ronald (1990). “Cost-cutting: How to do it right,” Fortune, April 9, 1990, pp. 26-33.

Hickok, Thomas (1999). Workforce Reductions: An Annotated Bibliography, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

40

Knowdell, Richard L.; Elizabeth Branstead; and Milan Moravec (1996). From Downsizing to Recovery: Strategic Transition Options for Organizations and Individuals, Palo Alto: Davies-Black.

Manganelli, Raymond L. and Mark M. Klein (1995). The Reengineering Handbook, New York: AMACOM.

Marks, Mitchell Lee (1994). From Turmoil to Triumph: New Life After Mergers, Acquisitions, and Downsizing, New York: Lexington Books.

Morden, A.R. (1995). “International culture and management,” Management Decision, 33:2.

Noer, David M. (1993). Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs and Revitalizing Downsized Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peters, T.J. (1992). “The search for new bases for competitive advantage,” Business Age, July.

Prahalad, C.K, and Hamel, G. (1990). “The core competence of the corporation,” Harvard Business Review, May-June.

41

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. Questionnaire for CGIAR Centers Re downsizing Practices

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CGIAR CENTERS RE DOWNSIZING PRACTICES CGIAR GENDER AND DIVERSITY PROGRAM, AUGUST 2000

Instructions: The following questions should be completed by the Human Resources Manager and/or the Deputy Director General for Administration (and perhaps better yet, by the two working together). The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn what challenges the CG Centers are facing with regard to downsizing, and what practices you are using to grapple with those challenges. Information gathered through this questionnaire will be incorporated into the CG G&D Program’s monograph on “Gender and Diversity in Times of Change” – a document currently under development, that is intended to be a practical guide to keeping gender and diversity issues in focus when our Centers are undergoing organizational (and staffing) changes. In most cases, the information obtained in response to the questions below will be aggregated into an overall picture of CGIAR practices – that is to say, individual Centers will not usually be identified in connection to a particular response. The exception will be with regard to highlighting your best practices. Anne Acosta (who has been contracted to develop the monograph) will contact some of you to learn more about your best practices. With your permission, we hope to feature some of your success stories in the monograph. If you need clarification about any of the questions below, please do not hesitate to contact Anne Acosta (a.acosta@cgiar.org) or Vicki Wilde (v.wilde@cgiar.org).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. Which of the following practices have been used in your Center with regard to making staffing reductions? (check all that apply, that have been used at your Center during the period 1995-2000)

A. Planning and preparing for staff reductions 1. A plan for laying off staff and restructuring work was developed and communicated to staff –

including, for example: (check or specify relevant components below) a. explanation of justification for downsizing; b. explanation of the logic and strategy for making staff cuts and restructuring work

assignments c. Other aspects of plan? (please specify)

2. A consistent approach was developed and implemented around how to manage the actions related to individual staff layoffs – including, for example: (check or specify relevant components below)

a. how to inform staff that they would be laid off b. under what terms (e.g, length of notice period, components of the severance package) c. what support would be provided in the job transition process to laid-off staff) d. Other aspects of plan? (please specify)

3. Managers who were/are responsible for announcing layoff decisions to the staff member, received orientation in how to do so appropriately

4. A longer-term organizational change strategy was developed and communicated to staff (e.g., how the Center may reposition itself in the context of a changing external environment, with changing donor priorities and resource availability)

42

5. A long-term strategic human resources plan was developed, including a current and future job competencies inventory, and current and anticipated job profiles

6. The impact of staff reductions on gender balance in the Center was considered when downsizing decisions were made

7. The impact of staff reductions on diversity in the Center was considered when downsizing decisions were made. (If yes, what kind of diversity? Nationality, discipline, age, other?)

8. An explanation was made to Center stakeholders of cause, downsizing strategy, and expected effect of staff reductions

a. Center Board of Trustees b. CGIAR donors c. NARS collaborators d. Others? (please specify)

9. Where your Center is an important local employer, discussions were held with local authorities re ways to soften the impact on local economy of (especially NRS) job losses

10. Other actions your Center has taken to plan and prepare for staff reductions? (Please elaborate on separate page)

B. Making staff and cost reductions 1. Across-the-board staff cuts made

2. Selected (non-strategic) research activities eliminated (along with associated staff)

3. Research activities streamlined (technology substituted for labor)

4. Tasks reallocated from IRS to NRS

5. Activities outsourced

6. Other collaborative alliances developed to substitute for in-house resources

7. IRS salary freeze

8. NRS salary freeze

9. IRS hiring freeze

10. NRS hiring freeze

11. Other actions your Center has taken with regard to making reductions in staffing and other costs? (Please elaborate on separate page)

C. Assisting staff that depart and staff that remain

1. Career counseling/job outplacement services were provided to downsized staff (IRS and/or NRS – please indicate which)

2. Repatriation counseling was provided to expatriate staff returning to their home countries

3. Access to job retraining programs made available (e.g., to national staff)

4. Documentation was provided to laid off staff, with suggestions on how to succeed in transitioning between jobs (e.g., resume writing, job search techniques, etc.) (If yes, in English? in local language?)

5. A “hotline” (confidential phone or mailbox system) was set up to answer people’s questions about the downsizing process

6. A system for generating recommendation letters for departing staff was used

7. Downsized staff were given opportunities to work at Center on a part-time or consultancy basis (IRS and/or NRS – please indicate which)

43

8. Staff morale was monitored during and after periods of layoffs (IRS and/or NRS? – please indicate which)

9. Efforts were made to boost the morale of downsizing “survivors” (those who remained after layoffs), including provision of counseling and/or other special support services (IRS and/or NRS? – please indicate which)

10. Training was provided to remaining staff who take on additional responsibilities (IRS and/or NRS? – please indicate which)

11. Other actions your Center has taken with regard to assisting staff that depart the institution and staff that remain? (Please elaborate on separate page)

PART II (Note: For the questions below, please use as much space as you need to reply. Three to five paragraphs per question should usually suffice to give a general reply. Bullet

points are also acceptable. Anne Acosta will follow up with selected Centers to obtain additional detail, where your practices seem of special interest to the larger CGIAR community.)

2. Have other measures have been taken at your Center to reduce expenses, in addition to staff reductions? (If yes, please list actions taken.)

3. Do your Center’s policies and procedures relating to personnel layoffs fully comply with local labor laws in your headquarters country?

yes no not sure

4. Are your Center’s outreach offices fully compliant with labor laws in those countries relating to personnel hiring and firing procedures?

yes no not sure

Important: please send a copy of your Center’s written policies on practices and severence benefits related to international and national staff layoffs to Anne Acosta (you may email documents if they are in electronic form, or fax hard copy to Anne c/o CIMMYT). Thank you.

5. In the course of making staff reductions, has your Center been challenged with charges of bias in the choices of which staff to let go? If yes, who made the charges, what was the nature of the charges, and how were these dealt with?

6. What have been the most effective practices your Center has used in carrying out staff reductions? (If possible, please identify at least three.)

7. What have been the most effective practices your Center has used in managing the after-effects of staff reductions? (If possible, please identify at least three.)

8. Do Center managers responsible for taking decisions on staff reductions feel they have the necessary skills and knowledge to handle downsizing sensitively and effectively? If not, what skills/knowledge areas need to be strengthened?

9. Does the Human Resources department have the necessary knowledge, skills and resources to handle downsizing sensitively and effectively? If not, what areas need to be strengthened?

Thank you again for your time and thoughtfulness in answering this survey.

44

APPENDIX 2. Worksheet for recording IRS staffing changes

Coding keys

Region of origin Staff position level Age Years of relevant

1. Africa 1. DDG or Director 1. 20-24 professional experience 2. Australia, New Zealand 2. Rsch program or admin

head 2. 25-34 1. < 5 years

3. East Asia & Pacific 3. Principal scientist 3. 35-44 2. 5-9 years 4. E. Europe & Central Asia 4. Senior scientist 4. 45-54 3. 10-19 years 5. Europe 5. Scientist / support profess’l 5. Over 55 4. > 20 years 6. Latin America & Caribbean

6. Associate sci / professional 5. 10 or more years

7. Middle East & North Africa

7. Post-doctoral fellow

8. North America Reason for staff departure 9. South Asia 1. Voluntary departure Degree level

(highest degree rec'd) Tenure at

Center 2. Non renewal of fixed term contract

Disciplinary area 1. Ph.D. or equivalent 1. < 1year 3. Early retirement 1. Management/ Info svcs 2. M.Sc./ M.A. or equivalent 2. 1-3 years 4. Retirement 2. Natural sciences 3. B.Sc./ B.A. or equivalent 3. 4-6 years 5. Dismissal w/severance pay 3. Social sciences 4. Other 4. 7-9 years 6. Fired for nonperformance

SAMPLE TABLE

Center name

Move-ment

Year

Entry

#

Sex

Region of

origin

Staff position

level

Age

Discipli-nary area

Degree

level

Years relev. exper.

Tenure at

Center

Reason for de- parture

XXX departure 1996 1 M 2 4 3 2 1 3 4 5 XXX departure 1996 2 F 3 5 3 3 1 2 3 1 XXX departure 1996 3 M 9 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 XXX hire 1996 4 F 8 5 3 2 1 3 XXX hire 1996 5 M 1 7 2 3 1 1

45

APPENDIX 3. Worksheet for recording NRS staffing changes

Center name: ___________ Male NRS hires, 199_

Fem NRS hires, 199_ Total hires

NR

S+1

NR

S+2

NR

S+3

…

NR

S+1+

NR

S+2+

NR

S+3+

…

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Tot

al

Sex Male Female

Staff position level Managers/supervisors Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) Other researchers/technicians Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) Other admin staff & support services Field labor

Age 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 55

Male departures, 199_

Fem departures, 199_ Total departures

NR

S-1

NR

S-2

NR

S-3

…

NR

S-1-

NR

S-2-

NR

S-3-

…

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Tot

al

Sex Male Female

Staff position level Managers/supervisors Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) Other researchers/technicians Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) Other admin staff & support services Field labor

Age 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 55

Tenure at Center (# yrs employed at IARC)

< 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years 10 or more years

Reason for staff departure Voluntary departure Nonrenewal of fixed term contract Early retirement Retirement Dismissal with severance pay Death

46

APPENDIX 4. Summary table – Total IRS by Future Harvest Center

August 30, 2001

CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT

IRS

MalesIRS

FemaleTotal IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102 Staffing by level - by position group 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

I: DDG’s and Directors 6 1 7 5 0 5 6 0 6 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 16 1 17 3 4 7 4 0 4 III: Principal Scientists 0 3 1 4 21 0 21 IV: Senior Scientists 21 8 29 7 2 9 27 5 32 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 0 6 1 7 11 8 19 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 16 8 24 1 1 2 5 2 7 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 4 0 4 2 1 3 8 5 13

Age (years) 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

20-24 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 25-34 5 3 8 1 1 2 4 7 11 35-44 20 7 27 14 3 17 29 10 39 45-54 21 8 29 12 3 15 37 0 37 Over 55 17 0 17 0 2 2 12 3 15

Region of country of Origin 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

Africa 12 3 15 6 0 6 7 0 7 Australia/ New Zealand 4 0 4 1 0 1 2 1 3 East Asia and Pacific 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 2 7 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 Europe 13 4 17 10 0 10 19 8 27 Latin America and Caribbean 14 3 17 1 1 2 16 4 20 Middle East and North Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 North America 16 7 23 7 6 13 20 4 24 South Asia 2 0 2 1 2 3 10 0 10

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

Less than 1 2 2 4 3 1 4 4 7 11 1-3 years 28 7 35 13 5 18 19 4 23 4-6 years 9 6 15 6 3 9 13 4 17 79 years 9 2 11 5 1 6 4 2 6 More than 10 15 1 16 0 0 42 3 45

Degree levels (highest degree received) 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

Ph.D. or equivalent 55 14 69 22 7 29 73 12 85 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 8 3 11 5 1 6 6 5 11 Other 1 1 0 2 2 3 3 6

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 63 18 81 27 10 37 82 20 102

I: Management/information 8 3 11 2 2 4 11 5 16 II: Social Sciences 2 4 6 9 5 14 7 3 10 III: Natural Sciences 53 11 64 16 3 19 64 12 76

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 56 12 68 27 10 37 82 20 102

< 5 years 9 3 12 4 2 6 3 3 6 5 - 9 years 7 2 9 3 1 4 1 5 6 10-19 years 19 6 25 11 3 14 27 9 36 >20 21 1 22 9 4 13 51 3 54

47

CIP ICARDA ICLARM

IRS

FemaleTotal IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 52 14 66 75 8 26 3 29 Staffing by level - by position group 52 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

3 1 4 3 0 3 4 1 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 5 1 6 7 0 7 6 1 7 III: Principal Scientists 2 0 2 24 1 25 2 0 2 IV: Senior Scientists 12 2 14 13 1 14 0 6 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 17 6 23 2 1 3 7 1 8 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 12 3 15 24 5 29 1 0 1 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0

Age (years) 52 14 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

20-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-34 3 3 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 35-44 15 7 22 11 2 13 8 0 8 45-54 22 3 25 39 6 45 11 2 13 Over 55 12 1 13 25 0 25 5 1 6

Region of country of Origin 52 14 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

Africa 4 2 7 5 0 5 1 0 1 Australia/ New Zealand 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 6 East Asia and Pacific 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 0 5 Europe 12 6 19 15 4 19 10 0 10 Latin America and Caribbean 16 0 15 1 0 1 2 0 2 Middle East and North Africa 3 0 1 35 3 38 1 0 1 North America 9 5 17 8 0 8 0 0 0 South Asia 5 1 6 8 0 8 2 1 3

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 52 14 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

Less than 1 3 3 6 7 0 7 3 1 4 1-3 years 16 8 24 13 2 15 8 1 9 4-6 years 7 3 10 17 0 17 7 0 7 79 years 7 0 7 2 0 2 3 1 4 More than 10 19 0 19 36 6 42 5 0 5

Degree levels (highest degree received) 52 14 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

Ph.D. or equivalent 43 11 54 53 5 58 22 3 25 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 6 3 9 10 2 12 3 0 3 Other 3 0 3 12 1 13 1 0 1

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 52 14 66 75 8 83 26 3 29

I: Management/information 2 4 7 7 1 8 2 1 3 II: Social Sciences 10 3 13 56 0 56 6 1 7 III: Natural Sciences 40 7 46 12 7 19 18 1 19

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 45 9 54 75 8 83 26 3 29

< 5 years 1 1 2 0 0 0 7 0 7 5 - 9 years 2 0 2 1 0 1 8 0 8 10-19 years 10 6 16 12 3 15 7 2 9 >20 32 2 34 62 5 67 4 1 5

IRS Males

83

14

I: DDG’s and Directors 5

6

48

ICRAF ICRISAT IFPRI

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60 Staffing by level - by position group 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60

I: DDG’s and Directors 2 1 3 4 2 6 7 1 8 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 12 3 15 4 0 4 0 3 3 III: Principal Scientists 5 0 5 23 2 25 12 2 14 IV: Senior Scientists 5 0 5 4 0 4 14 8 22 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 14 5 19 1 1 2 1 0 1 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 15 4 19 2 1 3 0 0 0 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 1 0 1 10 2 12

Age (years) 0 0 0 39 6 45 44 16 60

20-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-34 2 0 2 3 2 5 35-44 12 1 13 21 11 32 45-54 20 5 25 15 3 18 Over 55 5 0 5 5 0 5

Region of country of Origin 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60

Africa 15 3 18 12 3 15 4 1 5 Australia/ New Zealand 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 0 2 East Asia and Pacific 4 1 5 1 0 1 6 2 8 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Europe 16 4 20 7 0 7 11 0 11 Latin America and Caribbean 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 Middle East and North Africa 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 North America 14 5 19 7 1 8 13 10 23 South Asia 8 1 9 5 1 6

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60

Less than 1 1 1 10 1 11 2 0 2 1-3 years 18 6 24 2 1 3 19 6 25 4-6 years 16 3 19 9 2 11 11 7 18 79 years 9 3 12 4 1 5 7 0 7 More than 10 10 10 14 1 15 5 3 8

Degree levels (highest degree received) 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60

Ph.D. or equivalent 41 4 45 33 6 39 43 13 56 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 7 4 11 3 0 3 1 3 4 Other 5 5 10 3 0 3 0 0 0

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 53 13 66 39 6 45 44 16 60

I: Management/information 0 1 1 6 0 6 0 1 1 II: Social Sciences 0 2 2 5 2 7 44 15 59 III: Natural Sciences 53 10 63 28 4 32 0 0 0

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 0 0 0 39 6 45 44 16 60

< 5 years 0 3 0 3 14 4 18 5 - 9 years 0 5 1 6 9 9 18 10-19 years 0 20 4 24 14 3 17 >20 0 11 1 12 7 0 7

49

IITA ILRI IPGRI

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51 Staffing by level - by position group 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

I: DDG’s and Directors 5 0 5 4 0 4 3 2 5 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 21 0 21 13 2 15 6 1 7 III: Principal Scientists 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 IV: Senior Scientists 27 5 32 0 0 0 16 5 21 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 24 7 31 46 9 55 7 1 8 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 6 5 11 2 2 4 7 2 9 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 11 2 13 4 2 6 0 0 0

Age (years) 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

20-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-34 10 6 16 2 1 3 7 2 9 35-44 32 6 38 24 8 32 9 4 13 45-54 43 7 50 31 5 36 20 5 25 Over 55 9 0 9 12 1 13 4 0 4

Region of country of Origin 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

Africa 40 4 44 19 5 24 4 0 4 Australia/ New Zealand 2 1 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 East Asia and Pacific 4 2 6 2 0 2 5 0 5 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 Europe 36 9 45 26 4 30 21 6 27 Latin America and Caribbean 2 0 2 6 0 6 5 0 5 Middle East and North Africa 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 North America 6 2 8 10 5 15 2 5 7 South Asia 4 1 5 0 1 1 1 0 1

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

Less than 1 11 3 14 10 3 13 4 1 5 1-3 years 31 6 37 15 5 20 15 4 19 4-6 years 19 5 24 8 2 10 11 3 14 79 years 11 1 12 5 2 7 10 3 13 More than 10 22 4 26 31 3 34 0 0 0

Degree levels (highest degree received) 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

Ph.D. or equivalent 69 8 77 56 11 67 29 6 35 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 13 8 21 7 2 9 7 3 10 Other 12 3 15 6 2 8 4 2 6

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 94 19 113 69 15 84 40 11 51

I: Management/information 17 6 23 6 2 8 4 1 5 II: Social Sciences 8 1 9 17 3 20 3 4 7 III: Natural Sciences 69 12 81 46 10 56 33 6 39

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 94 19 113 69 15 84 0 0 0

< 5 years 11 5 16 8 2 10 0 5 - 9 years 10 3 13 9 5 14 0 10-19 years 36 6 42 27 5 32 0 >20 37 5 42 25 3 28 0

50

IRRI ISNAR IWMI

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39 Staffing by level - by position group 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

I: DDG’s and Directors 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 1 7 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 5 0 5 4 0 4 6 0 6 III: Principal Scientists 1 0 1 3 0 3 4 0 4 IV: Senior Scientists 4 0 4 9 3 12 9 0 9 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 39 7 46 9 2 11 1 3 4 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 9 0 9 2 4 6 1 0 1 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 18 4 22 0 7 1 8

Age (years) 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

20-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-34 5 3 8 1 1 2 5 3 8 35-44 33 2 35 8 4 12 14 0 14 45-54 31 6 37 7 2 9 9 1 10 Over 55 13 0 13 11 2 13 6 1 7

Region of country of Origin 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

Africa 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 1 3 Australia/ New Zealand 6 1 7 1 0 1 3 0 3 East Asia and Pacific 23 7 30 0 1 1 2 0 2 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Europe 9 0 9 8 2 10 11 1 12 Latin America and Caribbean 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 0 0 Middle East and North Africa 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 North America 23 2 25 8 2 10 6 2 8 South Asia 19 1 20 2 0 2 8 1 9

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

Less than 1 8 3 11 2 1 3 18 2 20 1-3 years 44 5 49 5 3 8 10 3 13 4-6 years 12 2 14 6 1 7 4 0 4 79 years 7 1 8 4 3 7 0 0 0 More than 10 11 0 11 10 1 11 2 0 2

Degree levels (highest degree received) 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

Ph.D. or equivalent 75 11 86 19 4 23 28 3 31 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 5 0 5 6 4 10 5 2 7 Other 2 0 2 2 1 3 1 0 1

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

I: Management/information 9 0 9 13 4 17 4 1 5 II: Social Sciences 5 2 7 13 5 18 9 1 10 III: Natural Sciences 68 9 77 1 0 1 21 3 24

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 82 11 93 27 9 36 34 5 39

< 5 years 15 5 20 3 5 8 9 3 12 5 - 9 years 16 2 18 6 2 8 4 0 4 10-19 years 25 3 28 9 1 10 12 1 13 >20 26 1 27 9 1 10 9 1 10

51

WARDA TOTAL 16 IARCs

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

IRS Males

IRS Female

Total IRS

Total number of international staff: 33 4 37 840 182 1022 Staffing by level - by position group 33 4 37 840 182 1022

I: DDG’s and Directors 1 0 1 65 10 75 II: Research Program or Admin. Heads 7 0 7 119 16 135 III: Principal Scientists 12 1 13 113 7 120 IV: Senior Scientists 0 174 39 213 V: Scientists/Support Professionals 7 2 9 192 54 246 VI Associate Scientists/professionals 4 0 4 107 37 144 VII: Post-Doctoral Fellows 2 1 3 70 19 89

Age (years) 33 4 37 787 169 956

20-24 0 0 0 0 1 1 25-34 1 1 2 51 33 84 35-44 18 2 20 268 67 335 45-54 14 1 15 332 57 389 Over 55 0 136 11 147

Region of country of Origin 33 4 37 840 182 1022

Africa 20 2 22 155 24 179 Australia/ New Zealand 0 33 6 39 East Asia and Pacific 2 1 3 58 18 76 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0 17 1 18 Europe 7 1 8 231 49 280 Latin America and Caribbean 70 12 82 Middle East and North Africa 0 48 6 54 North America 1 0 1 150 56 206 South Asia 3 0 3 78 10 88

Tenure at Center (# of years at Center) 33 4 37 840 182 1022

Less than 1 10 2 12 97 31 128 1-3 years 8 0 8 264 66 330 4-6 years 6 1 7 161 42 203 79 years 6 1 7 93 21 114 More than 10 3 0 3 225 22 247

Degree levels (highest degree received) 33 4 37 840 182 1022

Ph.D. or equivalent 28 4 32 689 122 811 Msc/MA/ or equivalent 5 0 5 97 40 137 Other 0 54 20 74

Disciplinary Area (in which highest degree received) 33 4 37 840 182 1022

I: Management/information 5 0 5 96 32 128 II: Social Sciences 12 2 14 206 53 259 III: Natural Sciences 16 2 18 538 97 635

Years of relevant professional experience (post PhD or equiv.) 0 0 0 700 143 843

< 5 years 0 87 33 120 5 - 9 years 0 81 30 111 10-19 years 0 229 52 281 >20 0 303 28 331

0

52

APPENDIX 5. Summary table – Total NRS by Future Harvest Center

August 30, 2001

CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

Staff position level 441 244 685 39 52 91 371 135 506 Managers/supervisors 21 6 27 3 3 6 24 5 29 Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 0 3 6 9 18 1 19 Other researchers/technicians 155 33 188 7 4 11 28 15 43 Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 116 153

269 9 14

23 29 67

96

Other admin staff & support services 34 23 57 17 25 42 164 42 206 Field labor 115 29 144 0 0 0 108 5 113

Age 441 244 685 39 52 91 371 135 506 20-24 17 23 40 0 0 0 5 6 11 25-34 85 83 168 19 22 41 83 57 140 35-44 154 70 224 14 21 35 153 39 192 45-54 147 61 208 6 9 15 93 28 121 Over 55 38 7 45 0 0 0 37 5 42

TOTAL 441 244 685 39 52 91 371 135 506

CIP ICARDA ICLARM

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

Staff position level 280 125 405 257 78 335 135 56 191 Managers/supervisors 6 3 9 0 0 0 3 4 7 Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 5 5 10 14 3 17 6 7 13 Other researchers/technicians 48 37 85 76 14 90 28 16 44 Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 18 48 66 19 56 75 16 19 35

Other admin staff & support services 50 30 80 129 5 134 34 10 44 Field labor 153 2 155 19 0 19 48 0 48

Age 280 125 405 257 78 335 135 56 191 20-24 25 5 30 1 3 4 9 3 12 25-34 51 39 90 27 19 46 54 31 85 35-44 91 47 138 90 33 123 48 16 64 45-54 89 23 112 118 20 138 18 6 24 Over 55 24 11 35 21 3 24 6 0 6

TOTAL 280 125 405 257 78 335 135 56 191

ICRAF ICRISAT IFPRI

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

Staff position level 214 111 325 856 181 1037 27 63 90 Managers/supervisors 13 8 21 74 14 88 4 3 7 Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 28 13 41 73 11 84 11 20 31 Other researchers/technicians 13 6 19 204 10 214 2 0 2 Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 19 32 51

320 56 376 7 16 23

Other admin staff & support services 53 37 90 72 3 75 3 24 27 Field labor 88 15 103 113 87 200 0 0 0

Age 0 0 0 856 181 1037 27 63 90 20-24 0 1 1 2 1 4 5 25-34 0 75 31 106 11 22 33 35-44 0 292 88 380 10 17 27 45-54 0 453 58 511 3 14 17 Over 55 0 35 3 38 2 6 8

TOTAL 214 111 325 856 181 1037 27 63 90

53

IITA ILRI IPGRI NRS

MalesNRS

FemalesTotal NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

Staff position level 807 138 945 610 201 811 52 90 142 34 8 42 36 13 49 0 0 0 19 3 22 14 0 14 12 13 25

131 25 156 93 19 112 10 11 21

63 49 112 62 51 113

5 5 10

456 52 508 316 108 424 25 61 86 104 1 105 89 10 99 0 0 0 807 138 945 610 201 811 52 90 142

20-24 0 15 9 24 1 2 3 61 238 122 50 172 10 31 41 58 450 258 79 337 25 40 65 15 192 193 53 246 13 11 24

61 4 65 22 10 32 3 6 9 138 945 610 201 811 52 90 142

IRRI ISNAR IWMI

NRS Males

NRS Females

TotalNRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS

Staff position level 547 340 887 8 30 38 70 41 111 Managers/supervisors 39 26 65 0 0 0 8 2 10 Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 67 98 165 0 0 0 6 2 8 Other researchers/technicians 262 81 343 5 11 16 16 0 16 Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 41 55 96

2 15 17 10 30 40

Other admin staff & support services 127 80 207 1 4 5 30 7 37 Field labor 11 0 11 0 0

Age 547 340 887 8 30 38 70 41 111 20-24 7 17 24 1 1 2 0 0 0 25-34 69 115 184 5 6 11 15 11 26 35-44 252 113 365 0 15 15 32 19 51 45-54 195 80 275 2 6 8 18 8 26 Over 55 24 15 39 0 2 2 5 3 8

TOTAL 547 340 887 8 30 38 70 41 111

WARDA TOTAL 16 IARCs

NRS Males

NRS Females

Total NRS NRS

Males NRS

Females Total NRS

Staff position level 224 25 249 4938 1910 6848 Managers/supervisors 9 0 9 274 95 369 Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) 11 0 11 287 182 469 Other researchers/technicians 5 2 7 1083 284 1367 Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) 7 7 14 743 673 1416

Other admin staff & support services 120 11 131 1631 522 2153 Field labor 72 5 77 920 154 1074

Age 224 25 249 4566 2090 6656 20-24 3 3 6 147 155 302 25-34 73 13 86 913 516 1429 35-44 110 9 119 1767 794 2561 45-54 33 0 33 1455 536 1991 Over 55 5 0 5 284 89 373

TOTAL 224 25 249 4938 1910 6848

Managers/supervisors Senior researchers (M.Sc. or above) Other researchers/technicians Professional staff (incl. admin, finance, IT, bilingual secretaries) Other admin staff & support services Field labor

Age

25-34 177 35-44 392 45-54 177 Over 55

TOTAL 807

54

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Carmen Jacobs holds a B.S. in Textile Science and Engineering from Texas Tech Univer-sity, and is a doctoral candidate in Administrative Sciences at the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico. She is currently an independent management consultant in strategic and technology planning. Ms. Jacobs has more than 25 years experience working as a liaison between governments, research institutes and private enterprises, on projects and programs to foster industrial and rural improvement in economically underdeveloped areas. She has assisted numerous companies and institutions in planning research and develop-ment activities. She has helped organizations and governments generate options for new industries, performing the required economic and feasibility studies for new business ventures, technology assessments of plant production processes, and technology transfer negotiations. Her endeavors in developing and organizing international markets have led to favorable technology and manufacturing contracts between countries such as France, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Anne Starks Acosta has been active in the field of international development and global food security for more than 20 years. She has worked at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center since 1990 as Assistant to the Director General and Donor Relations Officer, and since August 2002 as the coordinator of CIMMYT’s strategic planning process. She has also collaborated with the CGIAR Gender Staffing Program and Gender and Diversity Program since their inception. Ms. Acosta has a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Yale University, an M.Sc. in Extension and Adult Education and International Agriculture from Cornell University, and is pursuing a Ph.D. in Organization Development at the Fielding Graduate Institute. Her doctoral studies focus on organizational and interpersonal dynamics that contribute to effective collaboration and innovative program delivery in international development initiatives.

55